Talk:Wind power/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Last paragraph of lead

I have moved this paragraph here for discussion and rewording as, based on above discussion, it seems to be causing particular problems:

Wind power, as an alternative to fossil fuels, is plentiful, renewable, widely distributed, clean, produces no greenhouse gas emissions during operation, and uses little land. In operation, the overall cost per unit of energy produced is similar to the cost for new coal and natural gas installations. The construction of wind farms is not universally welcomed, but any effects on the environment from wind power are generally much less problematic than those of any other power source. Large-scale implementation of wind energy production will however need to address concerns related to siting, aesthetic and environmental factors, and land availability.

Please work on this and suggest improved wording. Johnfos (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello again Johnfos. Just as I thought we were beginning to make some headway towards a more balanced presentation, I was surprised you deleted what I felt was a sensible conclusion to the lead. There may well be differing opinions on this para as there are on other parts of the article but I think it is a mistake simply to remove sections of text awaiting improvements in wording. The normal way forward is to make improvements to the article itself, not to bits and pieces copied to the talk page. I would suggest we continue to work along these lines. For this reason, I have reinserted the deleted paragraph. - Ipigott (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sure you have noticed the RfC and extensive discussion on this page about NPOV. There seem to be matters in dispute. In such circumstances, it is usually advisable to avoid major edits to the article--including edits to the lead. Above all, please avoid edit warring. Sunray (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Sunray, I have indeed been following the NPOV discussions very carefully. I don't think there was any question of major edits to this passage, only perhaps slight modifications in the presentation, triggered I believe by a hint of sarcasm. I do, however, think it would have been a mistake to remove two references to potential difficulties in implementing wind energy. In my opinion, they provide better balance to the article. Presenting just one side of the picture is not a very convincing way of reporting on a major development of a new source of energy. I'm afraid I don't understand why you think reinserting a passage of text could lead to please avoid edit warning. (Your use of bold looks rather threatening here.) As far as I am aware, I have never been involved in any kind of editing conflict on Wikipedia and pride myself on having been able to resolve some of the disputes incurred by other editors. In any case, before properly referenced passages are removed from an article, it is usual for editors to raise the matter first on the talk page in order to solicit discussion. Thanks for your interest in the development of the article. - Ipigott (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

anchor - and article request

(protected page) That's some strong lock you've got there..

Can someone insert an anchor link from "Wind power variability" at Wind_power#Variability_and_intermittency - there's quite a few places that need to link to that section -

a separate article might be a good idea -as it is a complex and in some cases controversial subject - would help to bring together the information here and on Intermittent_energy_source#Wind_energy and Wind power forecasting into one place (I won't be volunteering for that..). Thanks.

Coverage of the topic is all over the place eg see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Wind_Power_variability - all these links I found had sections covering essentially the same topic with no real main article... Oranjblud (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

is missing a left facing bracket and should read:

Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 03:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Why the lead is so unbalanced

The NPOV page on Wikipedia says Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.

I could, if I so desired, find 100 instances of where there has been opposition to wind farms in reliable sources, yet the article plays this down with the statement The construction of wind farms is not universally welcomed, but any effects on the environment from wind power are generally much less problematic than those of any other power source.

That is followed by a broken link to a web site with the domain name sustainabilitycentre.com.au Just given the domain name, one might expect the web site to say that either wind, solar, or some other renewable energy source is generally much less problematic than a non-sustainable one like nuclear, coal or gas.

The lead has masses of information telling us how much energy we can get from wind, and how much it is expanding, but very little about why they are not universally welcomed. That is putting undue weight on the pro-wind view. There are many reasons wind turbines are not "universally welcomed", which include flicker, the subsidies, noise, infra sound, the look of them, a reduced value of property, television interference. Some argue their technical merit, including that of Jack Steinberger a winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics. http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10254009-54.html It is not reasonable to virtually dismiss the reasons for their dislike in a couple of sentences in the lead. As such, the lead is putting undue weight on one viewpoint, whist virtually dismissing the others.

Currently most things are attributed to sources which claim to be pro-wind. BUT, even if the wording was unchanged, and all the sources changed to credible sources, the wording would still be puting undue weight on one viewpoint. I could easily go in and edit the lead, and list why they are not universally welcomed and cite credible sources, but I somehow suspect Johnfos would reverse any such edits, as he seems very keen to keep the article unbalanced. Drkirkby (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"I could, if I so desired, find 100 instances of where there has been opposition to wind farms in reliable sources." If you wish to improve the article, please do go find such instances and edit accordingly! I would suggest that this would be a far more effective way to improve the article than is complaining about its current content. "I somehow suspect Johnfos would reverse any such edits, as he seems very keen to keep the article unbalanced." Please try to avoid personal attacks such as this. Comment on the content, not the editor. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Those 100 instances would be ....? The trouble as you've already admitted earlier, is that it is common to see some sort of NIMBY effect at any installation/construction, thus just giving some number of instances, without any context with regards to how widespread/penetration in community there is for such - they are basically useless. As to why this is important: I could find 100's of sources describing opposition to just about any type of installation/construction that you care to mention - this does not translate into "common", nor does such carry much WP:WEIGHT. This is the basic trouble that you run into every time! You want a specific POV to show, but you are either incapable or unwilling to provide the WP:RS's that describe the issue generically - instead of locally. Now if you could instead find some reliable sources that describe the generic opposition to windfarms, then it would be a whole other cup of tea. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I need to go to work, so this comment must be quick. Does the fact that there is some sort of NIMBY effect mean that the concerns people have should just be ignored, so therefore skipped over with little comment about them in Wikipedia? Since currently the lead basically sums up the opposition to them in two sentences, citing a as a reference a nonexistent page on a web site clearly devoted to renewable energy substainable energy (sustainabilitycentre.com.au). The link is dead anyway, but looking at the domain, we can see it is Australia, where one might reasonably expect they are less of a problem as the population density is so low compared to other places like the UK. Anyway, i need to leave for work Drkirkby (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Likely not much anyone says will make much difference as you seem to have a set point of view. I hope I'm wrong about that, but you seem to be repeating the same things with little reference to policy or to what other editors are saying. You seem to have missed the main point raised by KimDabelsteinPetersen about WEIGHT. Do you understand how the latter policy works? It requires that information and sources are in proportion to their prevalence. While it may be true that "wind turbines are not 'universally welcomed,'" we have to determine the appropriate weight of the various views. Sunray (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You are picking on one point rather than the general tone of the article, which is promotional in nature and uses sources that are also promotional. Examples were given above which you chose to ignore. I see no sign that you have attempted to do anything other than shoot the messenger. Greglocock (talk) 08:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sunray, you are not going to convince me there is not a lot of opposition to wind farms. The issue that must be resolved is how much weight that opposition is given in Wikipedia. You, or any other editor, have every chance of persuading me it should be X % or Y%. I have no fixed views on what weight should be attributed to the negative aspects, although I believe it is more than is currently given. But if you, or someone else wants to convince me the weight given to the opposition should be very small, as it currently is now, you, or anyone else must do better than provide one reference to a web page that does not exist, on a web site which is clearly devoted to renewable energy, in a country with a very low population density.

Would you find it acceptable if I stated no other source of power than nuclear power needs to be considered, and backed that up with a non-existant web page (i.e. 404 error), on a web site with a domain name of we-love-nuclear-power.com? I think you would rightly challenge that. (BTW, it's not a view I hold anyway, but I'm just using it as an example). Drkirkby (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"... you are not going to convince me there is not a lot of opposition to wind farms" <- That attitude is incompatible with writing Wikipedia. We go by what reliable sources say, not by what our personal opinions are. I suggest you sit down a bit and read our five pillars, and then either drop the stick, or start backing up your assertions/views with reliable sources. The 404 error that you are talking about, is something that needs to be fixed, certainly, but from what i can see, the statement that it is being used as a reference for, is not dubious, nor is it controversial (and it can be easily exchanged).. so we can survive without it being fixed right now (the article is locked).

I said a lot - I did not say a majority. I accept there may be a majority that support wind power.

Back to the basics: What we need are generic sources that describe the opposition to Wind power on a global scale, so that we can determine the WP:WEIGHT with which to describe such opposition. And as an aside: The United Kingdom, while being a major industrialized country, isn't (at all) representative of wind power globally, nor is it even remotely representative in Europe. It has little installed capacity compared to other countries, and it seems to have different problems as well.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's the archived version of the 404'd link: http://web.archive.org/web/20110725044717/http://www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/WindPowersStrength.pdf --E8 (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It does strike me as a bit biased, that the material from Why Australia Needs Wind Power (Dissent #13) is mentioned, which is in direct response to an article in the previous issue of the same magazine, with the title What's wrong with the dash for wind? [1] One is referenced in Wikipedia, the other is not. I've not read either article in full, but just skimming them quickly, both articles appear to be very much an opinion piece. Neither appears to have undergone any peer review. There is no "received" and "accepted for publication" date. There are lots of numbers stated in both articles, but hardly an inline citation of where those numbers come from in either article. Quite honestly, I can't really see how either article can be considered reliable sources. Drkirkby (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Kim D. Peterson on the need to support the lede with reliable sources on a worldwide basis to avoid WP:Undue. It will be somewhat difficult, but from spending a bit of time on the net I can see that its doable. My personal observations are that the polling that's been done consistently supports renewable energy and wind, and consistently supports significantly increasing renewable energy, including wind power energy. Various polls have compared safety of wind energy and desirability of wind energy, but mostly on a regional basis (state, province or regional), so it may be that we'll have to compile a table of such polls and generate averages to get overall world-wide figures.

One poll that is representative of renewable energy as a whole was indicative of where the public stands in general on renewables, including wind, versus every other form of energy. The poll is called Public Opinion on Global Issues – Chapter 5b: World Opinion on Energy Security (viewable online) by the non-partisan CFI organization. That large survey, released in January of this year, covering numerous countries and is summarized here on this WorldPublicOpinion.org article: Large Majorities in US and Europe Endorse Focus on Renewable Energy.

Even more indicative of wide-spread direct support for wind power is Table 5 on this Harris Interactive/Financial Times poll summary, Large Majorities in U.S. and Five Largest European Countries Favor More Wind Farms and Subsidies for Bio-fuels, but Opinion is Split on Nuclear Power, which reported on a six country survey (U.S. and five European countries). To quote from that webpage:

“ Big majorities of the public in all six countries favor the building of more wind farms in their countries, varying from 90% in Spain and 87% in the U.S. to 77% in France. And large numbers of them favor it "strongly". ”

In this poll, the combination of 'support' and 'strongly support' choices for increasing wind power totaled in the high eighty percentiles. HarryZilber (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Good catch.. All of which results in a conclusion that there is very little (single figure percentages) opposition to Wind power in general. I think most will agree that this is the case. Now the problem that seems to be cropping up here is that when looking at local/regional opposition to specific Wind farms then it should be substantial - but all we have are anecdotal evidence of this. (ie. ref's to individual campaigns against ..)

To move on from that stage, and to address whether or not such opposition in general is substantial, we'd need WP:RS's that address the typical problems with regards to projecting/planning/building Wind farms. It might be the case that once we're talking location, then the opposition rises to a substantial factor, but we'd need some reliable sources that address this in a general way. Many of these factors should already be covered in Environmental impact of wind power (which we already summarize) - but there may be other factors involved. But to keep repeating myself: We need reliable sources that address this generally - not local sources about specific cases. Otherwise we're in WP:OR/WP:SYN land. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Although it is not a peer reviewed journal, the paper "Explaining NIMBY Opposition to Wind Power" by two academics from the Department of Political Science, University of Calafornia (see http://www.eastbrookwind.com/docs/nimby_wind.pdf ) argues why national oppion polls show high support for wind, but local ones do not. They argue it is not NIMBY-sydrome, but people give superficial answers with little thought in national surveys, but think about the issues more when it is local to them. The article is intersting in that it does cite a lot of peer reviewed journals. I may be biased, as I'm not over keen on wind farms, but I do genuinely believe the article is far more balanced than articles written by the anti-wind groups, or the pro wind groups. The discussion section makes no references to whether wind power is a good or bad idea. There's nothing to say we should build more or less wind turbines. As such, I think it is a useful reference, but someone might be able to argue its not a relieable source. Drkirkby (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Although I've not read the full paper (I'll need to so via a university account to avoid having to pay to download it), the abstract of this http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511009104 which is based on data from Sweden, says As in many other countries, the establishment of new wind farms has aroused local opposition. It then goes on to say However, we found no evidence of the NIMBY-syndrome; rather, those opposing the wind farms question windpower more generally, especially vis-à-vis nuclear power. Note this is a peer reviewed journal article - something the Wikipedia page seriously lacks. Over the weekend, I'll try to find some other decent sources. Drkirkby (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on interviews with 40 stakeholders.... sigh... Not alot to base something about wind power in general on ... is it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a telling point in [2] in the subtitle which is "However paying more for renewable energy is generally unpopular". That bolsters the point about the British MPs' letter which I've already already mentioned. People are not too worried about paying more in times of plenty but with the recent recession and employment uncertainty attitudes are changing and the article should reflect that. All of the references to opinion polls used in the article are from some years ago and since they were done the world financial situation has changed radically. I think we need to add citations for the more recent polls and a sentence along the lines of "paying more for renewable energy is generally unpopular". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richerman (talk • contribs) 17:10, 6 April 2012

Drawing our own conclusions is never OK. Btw. the Harris poll would need to get referenced in secondary reliable sources before we could use it. As it is, you are referring to a press-release. I find the questionairre rather questionable btw. (ie. lots of the questions seem to be of the "begging the question" type) ... but ... that is entirely my opinion, and shouldn't be taken as more. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that we draw our own conclusions - the phrase I suggested is from the the article, however, I take your point about it being a primary source. Primary sources can, of course, be used as long as you don't draw your own conclusions - is it not ok to use a conclusion they have drawn themselves? Richerman (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think that you need to pay more for Wind? 'tisn't in the survey. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a perception (rightly or wrongly) that renewables in general will cost more and that wind is inefficient (as suggested in the MPs letter) but I suppose that's too complicated to be covered by the phrase I suggested. Richerman (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we agree some edits to improve the article?

We have had some discussions about our differences of opinion, but we need to move forward. Can I suggest we propose some edits from the current article, that will improve it. Clearly this is a contraveshal topic, so why don't we start with some edits which are least contravershal, so we are most likely to get an agreement. It is unlikely to please many (myself included), but I believe trying to get the more contravershal edits in now, will just cause more heated feelings. So I'm going to propose one edit, that I don't think is contravershal.

1. We remove the graph showing "Distribution of wind speed (red) and energy (blue) for all of 2002 at the Lee Ranch facility in Colorado." As it currently stands, the graph makes no sence, as there are no numbers on the right.
2. We change the contents of the section to something quite simple, with a view to the section later being re-written from a more scientific point of view, but in an eay to understand why. At the minute, it appears to be scientific, with references to two mathematical distributions, but as a scientist/engineer, I can't work out what it means.

So how about The wind speed in any location will vary from virtually zero to high values throughout the year <cite a reference from a peer reviewed scientific journal>. It is important to cite turbines at locations which reguarly experience high wind speeds. <if we can site a peer reviewed journal for this, then we should do so, but if not, let make do with a reference from one of the industry sources.>

Would that seem a reaonable edit? If we can agree on that, perhaps an admin would change that section, so we have improved the article, without getting into a big argument.

Of course, there are still people wanting more contravershal edits, but lets make two or three non-contravershal edits, before tacking the bigger issues Drkirkby (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. It should be expanded rather than removed. And i'm sorry, the fact that you got a PhD in optoelectronics/bioengineering(?), does not confer much confidence to your assertion on distribution of wind speed. [especially since you admit earlier that you have no idea what Weibull distribution is] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Civility, please. Comment on the content, not the editor's credentials. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, normally Ebikeguy... except that Drkirkby invoked his (unnamed) PhD, as a rationale for the removal ("but as a scientist/engineer, I can't work out what it means"). Thus the credentials became an issue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ignore all credentials.--E8 (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Striken. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think additions to this content could make it more readable for the layman, and improvement certainly could be done, but it's critical that relevant technical terms remain for proficient readers. Potential sources. The graph is a bit confusing, but it is useful; it should be made clear/corrected, not removed. I have contacted the creator for comment.-E8 (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That section is going to be inpenetrable to the laymen, and I suspect a mathematician too. Even after looking up what the Weinbel Distribution was, I'd improved my mathematical knowledge, but it was still impossible for me to understand this section in the wind power article. So I decided to Google the topic, and about the first page I came across was http://www.wind-power-program.com/wind_statistics.htm That is much more readable.

Stating early on that the most commonly occuring wind speed is less than the mean wind speed would be useful, as one only needs a knowledge of the mean to understand that. You don't even need to know what a pdf is to grasp that. One needs a good knowledge of mathematics to undertand the topic fully, but knowledge of the mean, standard deviation, pdf and skew allows one to get a reasonably useful understanding. It's clearly a complex topic, and perhaps deserves its own article, but I feel this section is particulary poor. I felt it was best removed than left in its current poor state, but clearly it is better if it can be improved.

I thought the fact someone with a science Ph.D. found the section impossible to understand was relevant, as it is an indication of how difficult it is going to be to the vast majority of people. The annoying this is, that getting a reasonable understanding of this does not require any advanced maths at all. BTW, it would appear Weinbull shape factor would be a more accurate, and more informative term than just Weinbull factor.

Anyway, I thought this might be somewhere to start with a reasonably non-contensius edit, but I was clearly wrong. Drkirkby (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no objection to bettering the content in this section, but it should be through addition/amendment, not removal. The link you posted articulates the information well; unfortunate that it's a consulting firm site. I will hit the uni library database next week to see if I can pull the full text documents I linked above and any other useful, reliable sources to improve this section.--E8 (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess I feel if something is particulary bad, it is best removed until something better is put there. I agree the source I found was not a neutral one, and I never once suggested it was added as a reference. Drkirkby (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Distribution of wind speed

I find the above section quite confusing. I'm not sure what is being implied, or what the graph is supposed to show. FWIW, I have a PhD in science/engineering, so if I'm struggling, I suspect most readers will too. There is hours on the left of the graph (range 0-800), and MW h on the right, but there is no scale. I assume there should be some numbers to indicate the amount of energy.

Also, I do wonder of the point of showing data for 2002 at the Lee Ranch facility in Colorado. We have no idea if this is representative throughout Colarado, the USA or anywhere else in the world. I assume this data would change very much depending where you are, so how useful is data collected over a small area of the USA? Drkirkby (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed the Distribution of wind speed paragraph and image for now -- please add back if you have some improved wording. Johnfos (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. You can't gut the article - let's find a better chart. It's an example, not a wind atlas of the world. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The main issue was not really the graph (I can guess there are just numbers missing from the right), but what the paragraph was supposed to be saying. The references to the Weibull distribution and Rayleigh distribution were not making any sense to me, yet I happen to have an A level in statistics and a science/engineering Ph.D. I freely admit to not knowing what the Weibull distribution is, and I'm sure I could find out if I was interested, but I don't think that would help me understand that paragraph. So for once, I happen to agree with Johnfos, and removing the paragraph is best, until someone can write it in such a way you don't need a crystal ball to know what they mean. Drkirkby (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:IMPROVE and WP:WIP.Jobberone (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

This topic was forked within this page; more detailed discussion of this topic can be found in this section.--E8 (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-contensious edit to one section

Administrator: in the section 'Wind power capacity and production' are two side-by-side tables, which are not equal in height, with the right-side table being a few rows higher. In order to balance the tables visually, kindly insert two rows of data to the very bottom of the left-side table (under the entry for Portugal). The new data to be inserted was obtained from the exact same source used for that table (GWEC Global Wind Statistics 2011). The addition of the two rows of data (at the very bottom of the chart) is to improve the appearance of the section visually and is non-controversial material. Additionally, the title of the left-side table will need to be changed from 'Top 10 countries....' to 'Top 12 countries....'.

Here are the two extra rows of data to copy and paste insert (directly under the Portugal row):

|-

| Denmark ||align=center| 3,871

|-

| Sweden ||align=center| 2,970

Thank you for your assistance. HarryZilber (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I would dispute the neutrality of the source of your new data, since its from the GWEC. On their web site it states GWEC is a trade association working to create a better political environment for wind energy. So they are not exactly neutral - quite the opposite. But given the rest of the table is taken from this source, it does not seem unreasonable to make the table neater and do what you suggest. Longer term, I'd like to see far less reliance on data from bodies that clearly exist to promote wind energy, and more data from credible sources. Drkirkby (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe there is any Wikipedia requirement that a reliable source must be "neutral." However, "promotional" sources are discouraged, and GWEC may fall into that category. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I have trouble seeing how it could be promotional - and what benefit the GWEC would have in "faking" the data about how much capacity/production there is in various countries. We readily use production figures from almost all other industries, but here it is suddenly considered "suspect"... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Nb. i could see how industry would "downplay" certain issues (for instance accident figures), but directly lying about data? That would damage their credibility with regards to government agencies that rely on accurate data from these. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Do you have any rational reasons to question the data, other than that you do not like the source? As far as i know it is a WP:RS, which is what WP is about - and the data seems to be accurate, when checked against independent sources. Even the EEC (EU) uses the GWEC data without any complaints.[3] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

See discussion about Germany, where it appears the 10% figure shoudl be 7.5%.

DrKirby: your inference that the GWEC is a non-credible source is unsupported beyond your belief that an industry association is not to be trusted. You appear to have deliberately ignored what Aflafla1 advised you of a week ago, namely: "For the United States, I have crosschecked the installed capacity numbers. The EIA has an Electric Power Monthly report which lists all the new generating units that come on line, including type and amount. For the year, the newly installed capacity reported by the American Wind Energy Association is reasonably close to what I get when I add up all the new wind power generation units from the EIA reports. GWEC gets its U.S. numbers from the AWEA."

We get it: you don't like wind power and you don't like wind power groups. However your personal beliefs aren't reason in themselves to disparage a trade organization. If you have a reliable source you can cite that says the GWEC fabricates data and is unreliable, please present it; otherwise please keep your personal opinions to yourself. HarryZilber (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

See above note from Ebikeguy: I do not believe there is any Wikipedia requirement that a reliable source must be "neutral." However, "promotional" sources are discouraged, and GWEC may fall into that category. Drkirkby (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I said GWEC "may" not "does" fall into the promotional source category. GWEC should not be immediately disallowed. Editor consensus should be used to determine if it is an RS. Ebikeguy (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That's what I wrote! To the best of my knowledge I simply copied and pasted your comment. There is the word "may" in what I wrote Drkirkby (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I interpreted the tone of your edit as suggesting that I supported the idea that GWEC was a promotional source. I wanted to make it clear that I did not. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Seems to be contentious, and the article protection has expired anyway. Anomie⚔ 01:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Land use

I've removed an assertion in the lead that wind power generation uses 'little land'. I can't find any cited evidence for this in the text other than one sentence that says the land on which wind farms are sited can be used for other purposes. A quick read of Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States will reveal that this is a complicated issue that can't possibly be summed up in such a simplistic phrase. Richerman (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you should read the NREL document a little more careful, which would tell you what exactly it is that it measures. On the other hand you could read:

• Fthenakis, V.; Kim, H. C. (2009). "Land use and electricity generation: A life-cycle analysis". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 13 (6–7): 1465. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2008.09.017.

which addresses the various land usages of the different power sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be good if you could quote sources other than those devoted to wind or renewable energy. I'm not disputing what you say is true (I have no idea if its true or false), but Richerman (talk)

What makes you think that this source is "devoted to wind or renewable energy"? Academic sources are not "devoted" to an agenda, but to a topic area. If you want to know something about physics, be it positive or negative, you look in a physics journal. If you want to know something about renewable energy, positive or negative, you look in a journal about renewable energy. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

is saying this is not as simple as the article implies. But given there are publications like IEEE Energy and Power Society - see http://www.ieee-pes.org/ I believe the article would appear a lot less biased if virtually all the references were not to wind/green related publications. Of course, one downside of IEEE journals is that one has to pay to view these, unless you or your institution has an account with the appropriate body in the IEEE, so it would be useful to have free sources that have the same information. But it's the constant references to pro-green/pro-wind institutions/publications that I feel helps give the article a biased view.

I know some people find wind turbines attractive, but I suspect such people are in a fairly small minority, like I suspect the number of people who find coal power stations or nuclear power stations attractive is quite small. If we accept that no form of power production is aesthetically pleasing (wind, coal, nuclear etc), then wind must be the most visible from the greatest area of land for its energy. I believe in the UK we produce about 3% of the power from wind, yet it is certainly the most visible form of power generation. So whilst the area of land taken up by wind turbines is quite small in terms of square metres, it is certainly more visible than other forms of power generation per GJ of energy. I went to the Isle of Skye earlier in the year, and came back by car to the South East. I think we see one coal power station from the road, which could be seen for several miles. But wind is far more visible than any other source.

If for example you assume a wind turbine takes up 100 m^2 on the ground, but can be seen from a radius of 1 km, then it can be seen from an area of 3.14 x 10^6 square metres, which is 31416 times the area it takes up!

I have not looked for any sources to back this assertion, but intuitively it would seem logical. I would not be surprised if I was unable to cite a source, as I can't imagine it's the sort of statistic someone would have actually calculated. It would be fairly difficult to quantify it exactly. If such a statistic was available, it would make an interesting comparison with the land usage and make the article appear a bit more neutral. Drkirkby (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You are confusing different notions badly. Land use is one thing, visual impact is different thing. --ELEKHH^T 05:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Please leave your intuitions at the doorstep to Wikipedia. If your intuitions were correct, then there should be a massive opposition to Wind in Denmark, where the landscape is filled with turbines. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Not without paying for it I couldn't :-) However, the NREL document, which was published a year later suggests that there was still work to do to collect the right data consistently for use in determining such figures. If this has been done, however, and there are robust figures that can be used to compare land use for different power generation systems please add something by all means but, as I said, the assertion as it stood was uncited. BTW thanks for correcting my silly mistake in the Wind energy section. I did know that the oceans have a higher heat capacity than the land but somehow it came out the other way round when I wrote it. Richerman (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

To-do list - removing "promotional status"

I find it curious that this entry fails to cite probably the most authoritative source on the subject, the Obama Administrations own Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration Study DOE/EIA-0383. They indicates Wind, especially off-shore wind, will not to be an economical source of power anytime in any of our lifetimes (http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/2016levelized_costs_aeo2011.pdf). According to DOE, the levelized cost of off-shore wind is over three times more expensive than conventional coal and almost five time more than natural gas. Absent massive taxpayer subsidies, wind will not be economical anytime in the foreseeable future. Why isn’t any of this included in this “crony capitalist” advertisement for taxpayer “donations” to the “renewal energy" lobbyists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Expose-inator (talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Really. Here's what I'm seeing in that same document: Total system levelized cost for conventional coal: 94.8 Onshore wind: 97.0 Wind wins when any carbon capture is added to coal.--71.214.209.23 (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

As a first stab at this, how about changing some of the wording in the introductory section: "Power management techniques such as excess capacity, storage, dispatchable backing supply (usually natural gas), exporting and importing power to neighboring areas or reducing demand when wind production is low, can mitigate these problems Wind power, as an alternative to fossil fuels, is plentiful, renewable, widely distributed, clean, produces no greenhouse gas emissions during operation, and uses little land."(2011)

... which is a bit rosy and one-sided. It would be more accurate to say:

"Power management techniques such as excess capacity, storage, dispatchable backing supply (usually natural gas), exporting and importing power to neighboring areas or reducing demand when wind production is low, can mitigate these problems at the expense of the extra generation and grid enhancements required.

Wind power, as an alternative to fossil fuels, has the advantages of being plentiful, renewable, widely distributed, clean, and producing no greenhouse gas emissions during operation. Although large land areas are required, the footprint of the wind turbine towers and their access roads is comparatively small in favourable terrain. Disadvantages include: dilute energy source; highly variable weather-dependent output and poorlow capacity factor of 20 - 40% requiring extra expense of backup generation which may not be low-carbon. any remoteness of best wind sites from main load centres imposes extra grid costs. If these extra expenses are neglected, the levelised cost of land-based generation is comparable to that of new coal or combined-cycle gas." (references as before).

Go for it?

SDalley (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes looks far more neutral than the current starry eyed vision that relies on everyone else putting money in. Greglocock (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No That's not even true, nor is it NPOV. The costs that a reputable study gives you are calculated as all-in costs per generated kilowatt hour, not neglecting anything (and I've never heard, nor could I imagine that there would ever be, a study that doesn't calculate and account for capacity factor, that would be ridiculous), and is supposed to include grid costs, and the results are typically comparable to new gas installations. And the land areas needed for wind are really tiny, they're not just 'comparatively small', as in you can farm right underneath and up to a working wind turbine. And they don't always require a back-up fossil fueled generator, and even where they do, they give an easily calculable and pretty stable effective average carbon footprint per year, which will nearly always be large and negative due to the wind power production offsetting other generators.Teapeat (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to Teapeat I have been studying which is the basis of the levelised-cost comparisons. Peer at Fig 58 on page 88 at expanded scale. It is clear from this that yes, indeed, extra transmission costs *are* included, and they are shown as about 3x larger than corresponding transmission costs for gas/coal/nuclear. So I've struckthrough the phrase about extra transmission costs from the above draft. But as a levelised cents/kWh of the wind generation itself it definitely does not include backup generation provision costs to cover low/variable capacity factor, which depend on place and circumstances. Hydro is best but not usually available, otherwise inefficient open-circuit gas turbine is typically used, which absolutely has substantial carbon footprint.

As for "required area", that depends. The wind farm required area is 0.5 sq.km/MW at 6m/s mean wind speed Yes, if you are on open farmland without buildings, the tower footings and service roads are a smallish fraction of that, once the construction is complete. But building clearances, steep gradients, woods, water, increase the environmental impact and/or reduce the capacity significantly. Offshore farms impact on shipping areas. "Comparatively small" seems a reasonable term to me given that this is just a summary, but I'll just say "small" if you like.. SDalley (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Up to 20% wind production of your total power you don't normally need ANY backup power, because the grid already has the built-in generation ability anyway.

And you still haven't understood capacity factor. Capacity factor isn't the same thing as variability; it's almost completely distinct. Capacity factor is the just average yearly power divided by nameplate power. But you don't get much yearly variation in wind power; the variation is at small timescales, and averages out over a year, and it turns out that anyway the builders can change it by installing bigger or smaller generators, leaving the turbine the same size. It's just that it usually cost-optimizes at about 30%, but (for example) it can be pushed up to 90% by installing a ridiculously smaller generator(!) And the capacity factor of gas or coal plants is usually only 45-55% and may be much less for a peaker plant.Teapeat (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

For the footprint, "small" seems good. I'm suggesting using "low" capacity factor instead of "poor" as well, "poor" being a value judgement. Also would prefer that the statement regarding additional transmission costs read:

The remoteness of wind generation sites can require additional transmission grid costs.

Instead of statement 'may require backup generation', I'ld prefer a statement like 'alternative generation sources must be available for times when wind power is not available', which I consider more accurate - as it is not the case that some particular facility 'backs-up' a particular wind generating facility. --Aflafla1 (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The bit that says "low capacity factor of 20 - 40% requiring extra expense of backup generation which may not be low-carbon" continues to be a non sequitor; they are not related, the capacity factor just means you need a few more windmills to achieve the same average power, it says nothing at all about backup generation, that's to do with variability, which capacity factor doesn't measure. It's the difference between average power and variance of power. For backup power you want to know about variance, which is related to the standard deviation of the power.Teapeat (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a complete red herring (as we say in england), to claim that wind requries extra back up, as an extra cost. This is becasue if wind were not built, then the existing power stations, or their future gradual replacements would clearly exist and be paid for. If wind is built so that these rarey run, they will still be there as back up, but will not have to be built extra to the wind capacity. Engineman (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Strong UK opposition to further on-shore development

I realize that one or two of the contributors to this article are keen to remove any details of opposition to wind power but I believe the situation in the United Kingdom has now reached a stage where it is no longer possible to gloss over such reactions, assigning them to ignorance or simply local phenomena. As reported in today's Sunday Times and other news sources, Greg Barker, the UK climate change minister, has now stated that there will be no significant expansion in the number of turbines on land beyond those already in the pipeline. His plans for up to 10,000 more onshore turbines encouraged over 100 Conservative MPs to write to the prime minister, labelling onshore wind "inefficient" and attacking the level of government subsidies. See here for a summary of article and here for further details. Many earlier snippets on UK opposition have been removed from the article and I myself have been accused of being influenced by reports in the media. Is there any support for including a reference to this development or is it still more important to develop a utopic, greener-than-green scenario? - Ipigott (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

There's probably too much about the UK in the article already.

Conservative MPs aren't exactly experts on wind power. I challenge you to define what "inefficient" means in the above; because it's certainly not about cost effectiveness, because off-shore is about 2.5 times more expensive than on-shore, and on-shore has comparable cost effectiveness compared to natural gas, but the Conservative government are actively funding off-shore wind and not on-shore wind??Teapeat (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we are already addressing UK issues significantly outside what WP:WEIGHT the UK actually carries within this topic area. But apparently some editors think that the UK is/must be representative, despite the UK being a small player globally, and despite the fact that UK positions demonstratively aren't mirrored in other countries. Sadly many of the discussions here are based on a UK centric viewpoint, without addressing how such issues are generally considered. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe that anyone here has expressed the opinion that we should "remove any details of opposition to wind power" - or any views that could even remotely be construed as such. What is the case though, is that several people are asking those that want more of such material, to substantiate it with reliable sources, that address it in the context of wind power as a general topic.

Let me try to explain again: Opposition to a specific wind project is perfectly alright in the context of that specific windproject.. ie. it carries weight within that context. But when editors argue that we should synthesize several such oppositions to specific projects into a general conclusion - then we are talking about original research. We need reliable sources that address this issue globally/generically, so that we can address it with the weight it has, and as neutrally as possible. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that information relevant to the UK only, should primarily go into Wind power in the United Kingdom. I think the pressure on this article to include more UK opposition to wind energy relates to this trend, however due weight should be given within the global scope of this article and on a long term basis, avoiding recentism. Nevertheless, reading the section Wind power#Politics, I think a better summary could be provided, that conveys the extent to which wind power often has been a contentious political issue, in some cases linked to misrepresentation of public opinions in the media, in the UK and Australia for example. --ELEKHH^T 23:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Sensible advice. Interesting here that the UK public opinion poll is more strongly supportive of solar than wind. - Ipigott (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That's all very well but the article is full of references to other countries, for example:

• In the US, the wind power industry has recently increased its lobbying efforts considerably, spending about $5 million in 2009...
• In Germany, where wind power has gained very high social acceptance, hundreds of thousands of people have invested in citizens' wind farms across the country...
• In Spain, with some exceptions, there has been little opposition to the installation of inland wind parks. However...
• In a survey conducted by Angus Reid Strategies in October 2007, 89 per cent of respondents said that using renewable energy sources like wind or solar power was positive for Canada...
• A 2003 survey of residents living around Scotland's 10 existing wind farms found....
• Some wind farms have become tourist attractions. The Whitelee Wind Farm Visitor Centre has an exhibition room....
• In Denmark, a loss-of-value scheme gives people the right to claim compensation for loss of value of their property...

Some of these have been added in the last couple of days and some have been there for some time but I don't see any moves to have them deleted. Why is it ok to have all these in the article but it's not ok to use national examples of a change of attitude to wind projects? Richerman (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• US, Spain and Germany are among the top 5 in absolute electricity production, each with a share of over 10% of world production. Denmark, Spain and Germany are top 5 as percentage of their national electricity production from wind. Most wind power in the UK is produced in Scotland. So seems that the examples follow to some extent regions with most practical experience. I removed the paragraph about public opinion in Canada in 2007, as appears to be undue weight in this regard. As previously, I agree that we need a better global overview in this section, rather than a list of examples. --ELEKHH^T 13:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The wording in the NPOV tag indicates that it should not be removed until problems are resolved,

An editor has recently removed it yet again, but quite reasonably asks for some examples of npov

in the lede

"Wind power, as an alternative to fossil fuels, is plentiful, renewable, widely distributed, clean, produces no greenhouse gas emissions during operation, and uses little land. "

The lede should be neutral. that is PR speak not a neutral summary

"The construction of wind farms is not universally welcomed, but any effects on the environment from wind power are generally much less problematic than those of any other power source."

ditto

In the main section

"Conversely, on particularly windy days, even with penetration levels of 16%, wind power generation can surpass all other electricity sources in a country."

Yes of course it COULD. I COULD jump over my house, given sufficient ridiculous and unmentioned subclauses.

"In America, wind projects are reported to boost local tax bases, helping to pay for schools, roads and hospitals."

electioneering

The problem is not that these things are uncited, the problem is that they are written in a promotional fashion. Every negative is relentlessly however'ed, whereas positive statements are emphasised.

If other editors who think there is an NPOV problem could weigh in with examples it would be helpful.

Greglocock (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As you say, it should not be removed, but I would not be surprised if someone decides to remove it. Its 1:40 am here, and I'm going to bed, but I'll start you off with just one:

* This is a positive which is emphasised. "Over the course of a day, 31 October, 2010, Portugal had a penetration level of 61%. The instantaneous penetration level was 75% for Portugal on the same day at 2:15 AM" There is no statement to say how low it was on any particular day. I've seen a figure of 1% in Norway on one day, and one could probably find a reference for it. To quote how high it can get, without quoting how low it can get, seems to be emphasising the good points, whilst skipping over the bad points. Anyway, as I said, it is late, so I thought I'd just weigh in with one thing. Drkirkby (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Have removed this statement about penetration level of 61%. Johnfos (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Greglocock states: "The wording in the NPOV tag indicates that it should not be removed until problems are resolved..." Yes, that is so. However, this has been the subject of a great deal of discussion on this page, including an RfC. I have seen no proof that there is a neutrality problem and have asked to see the evidence. It seems to me we have some editors pushing a particular POV. A significant majority of editors have responded to the RfC in the negative (i.e. do not find the article to be overly "promotional"). As most experienced editors are well aware, to describe a particular topic necessarily involves presenting information that describes that topic. This is not to be confused with promotion. The gold standard is to write in neutral language and use reliable sources. The better the article, the better the sources. I would like see some evidence of the article's lack of neutrality. No more opinions, please, just facts. Sunray (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Greglocock seems to be saying that correct, well-referenced language should be disallowed because the stating of these facts supports a certain point of view. Well... Yes. That is the nature of presenting information effectively. People who present well-cited facts in support of their position tend to win arguments. What is wrong with that? Ebikeguy (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with that should be obvious. You are supposed to be trying to create an encylopedia - not win an argument by the use of well-cited facts which support your point of view. It should not be a case of editors A, B and C adding pro-wind facts, whilst editors D, E and F add anti-wind facts. That seems to be what is happening. Drkirkby (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. An article describing wind power should unquestionably contain language describing the benefits of wind power. Fortunately, there are abundant reliable sources that describe such benefits. An editor that uses these reliable sources in creating the language that describes the benefits of wind power is editing in a correct and proper manner. Ebikeguy (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"Nuclear power, as an alternative to fossil fuels, is plentiful, renewable, widely distributed, produces no greenhouse gas emissions during operation, and uses little land. " Greglocock (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The lead states that wind power produces no greenhouse gas emissions during operation. But many have motors to start the turbines turning at low wind speed. So whilst they don't actually produce the CO2, they make it be produced from elsewhere. I need to leave for work in 5 minutes! Drkirkby (talk) 05:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sakes! Really?! What if the power to start the wind turbine comes from other wind turbines? Or from a photovoltaic array? If the net impact on the grid from wind turbines is positive, then it is a specious argument to suggest that starting them with grid power requires fossil fuels. Ebikeguy (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree that there should be improvements to wording of some individual statements, and these statements should be tagged with an inline "dubious" tag or something similar. Or some softening of wording could simply be done on statements which have been raised here. If there is a significant problem with a particular section, then use a banner tag on that section. But to add a POV tag to the article as a whole is not warranted and I see it as just a means to discredit the article. As Sunray has correctly pointed out, there has been the subject of a great deal of discussion on this page, including an RfC and there no proof that there is a neutrality problem with the whole article. A significant majority of editors have responded to the RfC in the negative (i.e. do not find the article to be overly "promotional"). Editors who are adding a POV tag at the top of the article are leaving themselves open to the accusation that they are ignoring the RfC process and simply pushing an anti-wind POV. Johnfos (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I see no need for edit warring. I also see no need to remove the neutrality tag. It implies that some editors feel the article is not neutral enough. There are editors here that feel that way therefore the tag is currently appropriate. The tag should be non-threatening. It does not mean the article is actually unbalanced. It means some think it is. For those who do not feel it is unbalanced, there is no reason to become defensive. Removing the tag without reaching a solution/compromise creates will appear to some as bullying, unwillingness to discuss the issue, and in the extreme is a form of censorship. For those that feel the article is actually unbalanced you must also respect others opinions which are just as valid as yours. There is no 'proof' that there is a lack of balance nor should there be any required. Perhaps there is one paragraph or even one sentence which can serve as a focal point for discussions. If that one thing can be discussed in a healthy manner and resolved perhaps you can move to another part of the article. To get anything done you are going to eventually have to work together. Just some suggestions for helping.Jobberone (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't see a lot of edit warring going on. I do see good use of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I think we've done pretty well at using the Talk page, instead of just barging ahead with unilateral changes to the article, and feel we are making progress. Johnfos (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There is edit warring going on in regards to the NPOV tag at least. I haven't looked at all the history of the article. There is no need for dispute and warring over a tag. I'm glad some feel they are making progress. If you read the talk page you will see that not all are satisfied and some appear to be frustrated. Some people have been singled out. Perhaps they will take notice. It is readily apparent some are making an effort so good job there.Jobberone (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

My edits have been revert warred completely away from the article, so there's clearly an issue somewhere. And to be honest, I don't think it's me.Teapeat (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. I think that we should perhaps avoid major edits while the issue of "neutrality" is being thrashed out. Sunray (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think perhaps we shouldn't revert war on that either.Teapeat (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem seems to be with certain editors pushing a particular POV. For example, Drkirkby has been very active on this page, including initiating an RfC, but has not presented any real evidence that there is a neutrality problem. In fact, the comments in response to the RfC show a majority of those who commented do not see the article as overly promotional. Drkirkby has ignored the results. A small group of editors, including Drkirkby, Jobberone and Greglocock are arguing that there is a neutrality problem, but have not provided any evidence of that, just opinion. The "neutrality" tag gets added in support of that opinion. It is time to get this sorted out. Johnfos has pointed to the BRD cycle as being a better way to go than edit waring. I agree. I have no problem leaving the neutrality tag on the article, provided that those who support it will present evidence forthwith. Sunray (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Please, leave me out of this. I commented because I was asked to and I thought I saw a little neutrality problem. I'm not going to source or reference my opinion. My opinion is not nearly as important as everyone else's. You guys need to hash this out between yourselves.Jobberone (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that the problem is not so much what's in the article, it's more what isn't in the article. There's no comparison with other power technologies, there's no examination of costs of off-shore wind generation. There's little coverage of public opinion surveys. The time to remove stuff is when the article gets too big; and it's certainly not too big. You don't usually get to NPOV by removing material.Teapeat (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Go ye, and edit! Add what is missing! Be BOLD! But don't remove valid information in an effort to "balance" the article, please. Thanks! Ebikeguy (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I did, I added about half of that kind of stuff to the article, and didn't remove anything, and johnfos and other editors block reverted it three times.Teapeat (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that, I'm finding the general strategy you suggest rather problematic; it's rare the BRD really solves these kinds of issues, there's too much R.Teapeat (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

How would you suggest dealing with the issue of neutrality? Sunray (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You could start by not block reverting edits which aren't blatant attempts to subvert neutrality and stop setting up largely pointless discussion sections on the damn talk pages.Teapeat (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we let the current RfC run its course, then find an uninvolved admin to close it with recommendations. We should base our decision regarding the NPOV tag on the conclusions and recommendations of the uninvolved admin. Once the RfC is closed, we should all accept the results as consensus, and we should not change the status of the NPOV tag unless consensus on the matter has clearly and demonstrably changed. I would suggest that the RfC has run its course at this point and that we should find an admin to close it, but if others think that more opinions might be forthcoming and valuable, then I would be happy to wait. Thoughts? Ebikeguy (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest everyone continue to work on the article. If you reach an impasse then I'd suggest discussing taking specific problems to a dispute. The article has only been protected a short time. You people are making progress IMO. Good luck!Jobberone (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that progress is being made. However, I would like to avoid a situation in which a few vocal editors could interfere with consensus. As we all know, consensus does not equal unanimity, nor does is equal a simple majority. That said, it would be useful if an experienced, uninvolved admin took a look at the RfC results and gave us a learned opinion as to whether these results could reasonably be construed as consensus. If so, then many would agree that the best way to improve the article would be to note the non-consensus position and be mindful of it in future edits, but to immediately move on per consensus. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a formal process where that can be done?Jobberone (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I've seen it done in the past, simply by putting a note at the top of the RfC asking for a neutral admin to review and close. That seemed to work in the past. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not certain about that route in regards to how Wikipedia normally operates. Anyone is free to as they wish within the rules and reason though. You have asked for a neutral editor to comment and now you wish for a 'neutral' administrator to comment then close. Do you think that is truly a shortcut to improving the article? Do you think most here are ready for that step assuming its appropriate? I've also reviewed the history of some talk pages. I think all should be working together and within the rules and good sportsmanship of Wikipedia.Jobberone (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that a couple of concerns related to the RfC need to be settled before it is closed. Towards that end, I added the "Evidence of a neutrality problem" section, below. The intent is to try to get us all to shift from opinions (which we all have in abundance :)) to use of sources and laser-like reference to policy. I've also tried to summarize the discussion related to the RfC. There seems to have been a shift in tone, since the article was protected, toward a more cooperative editorial climate. The discussion in the "Can we agree some edits" section added by Drkirkby seems promising in that regard. May it all continue! Sunray (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Evidence of a neutrality problem

The case for a neutrality problem, supported by citations from reliable and verifiable sources and with reference to specific policy, such as WP:NPOV.

I presume this section is here for evidence to be collated so I'll make a start:

• Under 'Environmental effects' the phrase "groups of people often organize to attempt to politically block new wind power sites" has a wikilink to NIMBY. Suggesting that all people who organise to oppose wind power sites are NIMBY's is a value judgement and there is no evidence given to support that assertion - nor could there be. The link should be removed (WP:NPOV) Richerman (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Odd that it's in that section, and yes, it will likely need to be rephrased, but the relationship is easily verifiable. Google "wind power" and "NIMBY" and you'll find plenty of coverage. This process is supposed to be about correcting the page, not just removing questionable content.--E8 (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The questionable content is part of the reason why the article is lacking neutrality. If you're so sure that this is verifiable please give us some reliable sources that confirm that all wind power opponents are NIMBY's. By the way, I was intending to use the bullet points to highlight the problem to be answered. For the sake of clarity could you consider changing yours to an indent? Richerman (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion, although well-intentioned, does not seem reasonable to me. It is not an editor's responsibility to research views in opposition to well-cited language that he/she is inserting. If other editors would like to do so, they have every right to do their own research and add well-cited language from opposing positions. Those editors who wish to add more content regarding the opposition to wind power should do so, and should cite their additions with reliable sources. This would be far more productive than criticizing the language inserted by other editors who add language about the benefits of wind power and cite reliable sources to back these edits up. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It is an editors responsibilty to give reliable citations for anything that they add. The NIMBY link is contrary to NPOV and should be removed. I have every intention of adding well cited information, but the one bit I added lately was reverted and the article has since been protected so no one can add anything. The whole point of this process is to get agreement on what changes need to be made. What does labelling opponents of wind power installations as NIMBYs have to do with the benefits of wind power? Some of the opposition comes from environmental groups who have concerns about local habitats being damaged, some comes from MPs or other national representatives concerned about the cost see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/cameron-defends-wind-farm-mps. Richerman (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Now that the article is protected, we have a great opportunity to discuss proposed changes before they are implemented. The link you just posted seems valid. What language do you propose to add, based on this link and/or other reliable sources? Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we should be clear where we're going with the point about NIMBYs first and then I'll give some thought to adding something. There was actually some research about the use of the term see http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1807322/wind-industry-avoid-branding-opponents-nimbys that shows it's not all about not in my back yard. Are we agreed that the link needs to go? Richerman (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is a clear RS reference linking behavior to NIMBYism (is that a word?), there should be no wikilinks suggesting such a relationship. The link definitely needs to go. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt there is such a word as NIMBYism, though the term NIMBY-syndrom might be used instead, with the same meaning. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511009104 which is a peer reviewed journal, says "However, we found no evidence of the NIMBY-syndrome". That seems to agree with what's written at http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1807322/wind-industry-avoid-branding-opponents-nimbys Drkirkby (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, well I think that there is agreement to modify the statement, removing the link to NIMBY. Done Sunray (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Are there other neutrality problems? Sunray (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I cannot see evidence here of a neutrality problem, so will remove the tag. Sunray (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Comparison between wind and solar

Please restore the following:

A demonstration project at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy shows the effect.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.44.2 (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2011‎ (UTC)

Improper removal of valid material from Public Opinion section

Elekhh had twice decided to remove valid material cited by reliable sources describing public support for wind power in Canada, writing in one edit summary: "rvv see talk page, this is an article with global scope, not a list of all countries".

First off Elekhh: the edit you reverted by Wtshymanski was due to an editorial dispute on your part, and not due to vandalism, and any pretense by you to such will result in a review of your actions at a higher level. More importantly, your actions to delete the valid material in the first place were unacceptable given that Canada is in the top 10 producers of wind energy world wide, and since several other individual countries are mentioned in the very same section. As such the material your improperly deleted is being reinstated to the section. HarryZilber (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I argued in the above section why I removed that paragraph, and those who reverted me did not provide a convincing counter argument to that. The paragraph in question does appear in Wind power in Canada. What I removed was its repetition here. I think many editors forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a book, and as such articles are supposed to provide dense summaries of certain topics, not exhaustive detail descriptions which nobody reads. Public opinion in Canada seems to be less relevant globally than public opinion in US, China or Germany which produce 4 to 10x more electricity from wind. Your mischaracterization of my edits (pretense of reverting vandalism?) is concerning, and your threats are misplaced and uncivil. Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. --ELEKHH^T 22:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Your very edit summary referred directly to vandalism (Rvv), so there was no mischaracterization involving your action. Additionally your cherry picking of which countries to discuss in the public opinion section doesn't jive given that Canada is listed in the top ten countries listed by the GWEC and Observ'ER in an earlier section. It can equally be said that any other country in the list isn't representative of world public opinion since no country produces a majority of the renewable energy produced worldwide. Sorry, your explanation is DOA. HarryZilber (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

"Rvv" was a typo, I normally use twinkle and the linked word "vandalism" when I mean that. Sorry for misunderstanding there. "It can equally be said that any other country in the list isn't representative of world public opinion" - that's correct and that's why I suggested the whole section should be improved, and should not be conceived as an apparently random enumeration of examples. In the meanwhile I intended to improve it, by removing one of the IMO least relevant parts. Just because "no country produces a majority of the renewable energy produced worldwide" is no reason to include all countries into this article. --ELEKHH^T 01:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Just to avoid further misunderstanding, please explain what DOA stands for. Thanks. --ELEKHH^T 01:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Just stopped by to see how things were going and how you guys were getting along. How is it going?Jobberone (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine, thanks. HarryZilber (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Great!..Jobberone (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Wind energy as percentage of global output

Is probably close to 0.5 % than 2.5 %. Better research is needed. 89.150.118.208 (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the wind power article overly promotional?

I would appreciate the views of others on whether this article is overly promotional of wind power. Is undue weight given to the advantages of wind power, whilst the disadvantages are given less prominence? Should the POV tag be put on the article? Drkirkby (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see it as overly promotional. This sentence "Wind power, as an alternative to fossil fuels, is plentiful, renewable, widely distributed, clean, produces no greenhouse gas emissions during operation, and uses little land." could do with rewoarding. There is a complete section on the environmental effects with a link to the main article. A lack of disadvantages of the technology should not be seen as making it promotional. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• No, the article is not overly promotional. I think there are problems with the article's neutrality. Undue weight seems to be given to people such as Dieter Helm. And merely reporting a concern noted by a small group of aged unelected British politicians (House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee) seems to be grasping at straws. Making it worse, there is a bit of weasel wording: "wind power now has the capacity to generate 430 TWh annually,". Well, did it generate that, or not? "has the capacity to generate" doesn't tell us much. Let's be specific about how much it did generate globally, from the latest available data. If an editor feels that industry bodies aren't reliable enough to report historic statistics about their own industry, perhaps a comparison with the same statistics from their industrial competitors is in order: why not compare historic IEA figures with those of GWEC? 80.175.8.40 (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. My concern is when the data is coming from groups like GWEC and WWEA who are bodies specifically aimed at promoting Wind power. They are not representative of the electricity generating industry as a whole, but only one sector of that (wind). That's why I don't consider them neutral sources.

Sometimes the idea of a Wiki is that when two editors join in with opposite POVs, the net result is a NPOV article that sufficiently covers both sides of the argument. If there is a tile towards to the benefits of wind power in the article, then I suggest that someone starts including a section that talks about the drawbacks - which are many. That's how Wikipedia works! Sonarclawz (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what the Wikipedia article means by the term "stationary electricity production". Perhaps that is just to exclude things like generators on cars - I'm not sure. (Perhaps someone could clarify that). The IEA site only had data for 2009. The IEA makes it clear data is released as soon as possible, but has to be delayed for confidentiality reasons. Taking for example data from the IEA for Germany http://www.iea.org/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=DE we can determine Germany generated 592464 GWh in 2009 of which 38639 GWh (6.5%) was from wind. Wikipedia, which uses data from the WWEA, gives 10% in 2010. Personally I would have thought Wikipedia is better served by older (6.5% in 2009) data from a reputable source rather than more recent (10% in 2010) from the World Wind Energy Association (WWEA). Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. Drkirkby (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Why consider verifiable not truth to be more fundamental than truth? --ELEKHH^T 14:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

IEA counts electricity and heat (6.5%). The figure 10% is for electricity alone - you do not generally use wind for heating. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Verifiable not truth is a Wikipedia policy - see verifiable. The only source given so far for this figure of 10% is a source which promotes wind technology. Given the quoted 10% is 53% more than the verifable 6.5%, I rather suspect the 10% figure is not true, but that's a personal opinion of course. BTW, the article Wind power in Germany claims In 2011, the installed capacity of wind power in Germany was 29,075 megawatts (MW), with wind power producing about 7.7 percent of Germany’s total electrical power", but there is no reference whatsoever to that. Note there is a small difference between usage and production, as Germany both inported and exported power, but the export was a bit larger than the input. So we seem to have 3 lots of statistics.

1. 6.5% in 2009 from a neutral source.
2. 10% in 2010 from a source which promotes energy.
3. 7.7% in 2011 from a source which provies no reference to the fact.

My preference would be to use the neutral source, which is verifiable, which is in line with Wikipedia policy. I hope I could get some agreement on other editors on that - even those that clearly are in favor of wind power. Drkirkby (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Drkirkby, you really do seem to be confusing the issue. You are obviously still trying to come to grips with some of Wikipedia's basic policies associated with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. If you want to discuss Wind power in Germany, please do so on the Talk page of that article, not here. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean me (user=drkirkby, real name = Dr. David Kirkby)? I assume you do. Someone suggested I compared the data from the International Energy Agency. I have done that, and gave Germany as an example only to show there are significant differences between the data from them, rather than a pro-wind group (the WWEA). I think that's a fair comparison to make. In order to do as requested, I had to chose a country to make a comparison. I happened to chose Germany. I have no particular interst in German energy policy. I don't live there, and have only done a bit of work there.

Would you mind please answering the following few questions?

1. Do you consider the WWEA to be a relieable and neutral source on wind power? (Don't forget to consider their Mission Statement http://www.wwindea.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=29 says the WWEA works for the promotion and worldwide deployment of wind energy technology)
2. Do you consider the GWEC to be a relieable and neutral source on wind power? (Don't forget to consider their web site says GWEC is a trade association working to create a better political environment for wind energy)
3. Would you accept that the International Energy Agency, which shows data for numerous sources of energy, for numerous countries without promoting any particular form of energy, to be a better of poorer source of data than the WWEA and WGEC?
4. Do you find it suspicious that the claim of 10% of wind power being generated in Germany in 2010 is likely to be true, if also it's true to say it was 6.2 % only a year earlier?
5. Had the IEA data indicated the usage of wind power was greater than the WWEA, would you have been happy to change the source, or would you have preffered to keep the WWEA data?
6. Would you object if I changed the sources of data on wind energy production from the WWEA and WGEC to the IEA? Drkirkby (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The IEA is not a neutral organisation. Its primary role is as an OECD alternative to OPEC: it is, and always has been, primarily about oil: it has extended its remit beyond oil. In this case, it looks like they got the numbers DRKirkby has given from the German Ministry of Energy's statistics. From Table 22 of its stats spreadsheet, I get these for wind as percentage of total German electricity demand: 2009 6.4%; 2010 6.2%; 2011 7.7% . Ernestfax^Talk 18:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Given you don't believe the IEA is neutral, do you believe the WWEA and GWEC are neutral? Do you WWEA is a better source for German energy usage than the German Ministry of Energy's statistics? Drkirkby (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd have thought that the German Ministry of Energy was pretty much the definitive source on German energy statistics, unless there's explicit evidence to the contrary. In which case, the 2011 figure for German wind generation was 7.5%, or 7.7%, depending on whether we use proportion of total generation, or proportion of total demand. There are another couple of potential ways to carve the numbers: one would be the proportion of total net generation (i.e. subtracting electricity-industry consumption); and the other, as provided, below by Kim D. Petersen, as proportion of total nameplate capacity. Ernestfax^Talk 08:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The German Ministry of Energy statistics actually says that it is more[4]:

Electricity: 18 % dieser Leistung wird durch importierte und heimische Steinkohle bereitgestellt, gefolgt von Wind (17%), einheimischer Braunkohle (14 %) und Erdgas (14%). Auf die Kernenergie entfallen 13%, auf Photovoltaik 10% der installierten Leistung. Im einstelligen Prozentbereich liegen Wasser (6 %), Heizöl (4 %) und sonstige (4 %).

So wind generatesis 17% of German electricity capacity, per the most reliable source around.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Or is it 8% in 2011 per this: Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (Feb 2012). "Die Energiewende in Deutschland" (PDF). Berlin. p. 4. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking through the data - it seems to be that 7.5% (preliminary data Dec 14, 2011[5]) is the correct figure, while the 18% is the capacity. Differences in how you figure the numbers (import/export part etc) makes the 10% a good figure, but the better one is the 8% (7.5%)--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

<----------------------------

Yes, the 8% of energy for 2011 seems a meaningful measure. % of peak capacity isn't really a meaningful measure, because capacity factors vary so much between technologies and year-to-year. Ernestfax^Talk 13:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• No, the article is not promotional and does not need a POV tag. For the article to be promotional there would need to be a lot of info on wind industry companies -- the scope of activities, available product (turbine) range, market share, marketing strategies, etc. but there is very little of this in the article. Companies often talk about the number of jobs they create, number of households supplied with power, and the amount of taxes they pay into local economies, but there is also very little of this in the article.... There is a good NPOV balance between advantages and disadvantages of wind power which is integrated throughout the article, which is the way it should be. One of the major negatives, intermittency, gets wide coverage, and my word finder shows 13 matches for "intermitt", which is a lot. In terms of environmental/aesthetic issues, we already have an article on Environmental impact of wind power, with a summary from that article and link provided here, per WP:Summary style. (This is the way we do things when a main article becomes too long -- we split off sub-articles leaving a summary and link here). So, no, the article is not overly promotional and it is not POV either. Johnfos (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC

Although I've argued about the statistics, I don't seee why these should be in the lead anyway. The purpose of the lead MOS:LEAD is to sumerise the rest of the article. I feel the detailed statistics should go elsewhere

I was rather hoping that asking for others to review this would have resulted in more people who have not edited the article. It does not seem to have achieved that, as 95% of the responses are from those whose views were known anyway. Drkirkby (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Alan Liefting, 80.175.8.40, and User:Sunray are not regular editors on this article and their independent opinion is that the article is not overly promotional. Please listen to what they are saying instead of repeating your own views over and over again. You are dominating this discussion by pushing your own POV when you should be listening to the views of others. Johnfos (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• No, I do not think that the article is overly promotional. It is classed "B" which means it is a fairly good overview of the subject and has citations for most of the material. Could it be better? Sure, it could be developed to "GA," "FA" or "A" class. In any of those cases, one would expect to see proportionately more high quality peer reviewed sources. You have commented extensively, above, on the quality of sources. In my opinion, you are missing an important point about neutrality. Sources do not have to be neutral. As has been amply demonstrated in the comments, above, most sources will have a bias. The key is to find the appropriate weight for an article. In any article, one would expect to see a majority of sources from people or organizations working in the field in question.

With respect to your statement about getting outsiders to comment on this RfC: Probably most of the people with knowledge and interest in wind power will be editors of this article. The bottom line is that editorial decisions about an article are made by consensus between article editors. Perhaps if you moderated your approach (i.e., lessened your insistence on your own POV) somewhat we might make some real progress on improving this article. Sunray (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• No, the article is not overly-promotional, as downsides to wind power are discussed, and no, the POV tag is not warranted. Sources need not be neutral to be valid (though this is ideal, and given options, the best choice), they just need to be properly characterized (which they appear to be after recent amendments). If there is concern about the industry bodies misreporting data, comparisons could be done with neutral sources (over the same time period); if discrepancies exist, they should be noted in the article.--E8 (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point about non neutral sources. The information in the article from 'Wind Association' sources mostly is the installed capacity numbers. Although as a whole information from these sources will be biased, the installed capacity numbers are pretty much cut and dry. There is little opportunity or reason for significant bias in the numbers. Conversely, quoting an amount of CO2 reduction from one of these sources would likely have a significant bias. The installed capacity is an important figure and should be included in the article, provided it is likely to be reasonably accurate, even if the best source we can manage is not of the highest quality. Yearly electrical energy generation would also be good to have, but I've never come across anywhere that has this number. --Aflafla1 (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is overly promotional. There does seem to be a tendency to gloss over the objections to wind energy production and mostly come down on the side of the industry. In the UK there has been opposition to every wind farm that has ever been proposed but under the Community section only one objection by the National Trust is mentioned. If you look at the article on Scout Moor Wind Farm, most of which I wrote, and which I took through to FA, you will see an example of this. There are mounting objections in the UK to the number of wind farms being proposed and to the cost to the taxpayer and environmental impact of them but I don't see this reflected in the article at all. There are also concerns that the UK legislation about noise regulations relating to wind turbines is out of date see: [6] And yes, I do intend to try and fix some of this, as and when I get time to do the research. The argument that this article has a B rating so it must be OK is ridiculous. The B rating was the opinion of one person more than three years and at least 500 edits ago (I couldn't be bothered going back further than that). The only ratings that have any credibility at all are GA (and then only if it's done properly by someone uninvolved with the subject) or FA.

Here are some recent reports from the UK press:

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9161898/Wind-farms-pose-risk-to-coastline-officials-warn.html
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16893018
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/27/windfarms-axed-uk
• http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/half-of-planned-wind-farms-blown-away-by-force-of-local-protests-2311645.html
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2096797/Wind-farms-actually-INCREASE-climate-change-raising-temperatures-warn-academics.html

Richerman (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes? And? When you specifically search for sources that support your viewpoint, then you inevitably end up with Confirmation bias. I've just read through your Scout Moor Wind Farm article, and when considering the figures in that article the opposition was apparently a tiny minority. Approval ratings were 72% (no information on opposition), and there is only a small mention about the protest by Bellamy in the article (as opposed to in the lede - which actually should be a summary). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

No, my search criteria was 'wind farms UK' and those are the news reports in order of how they came up. That article was written some years ago and of course the opposition was mostly from people in the immediate area who were most affected with some support some from outside interest groups. However, as I said there is growing opposition in the UK as evidenced by the recent articles. There's a small mention in the Scout Moor article about Bellamy and a small mention in the lede so I don't see what you point is. I find it rather sad that as soon as someone disagrees with your viewpoint you go on the attack and criticise their work - especially when it's the only FA article on wikipedia concerning wind energy - there seems to be a general lack of WP:AGF in your response. Actually when I wrote the article I knew very little about wind energy but generally leaned towards being in favour of it, however, I tried to just report what happened and make it as neutral as I could. Richerman (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Richerman, I think you've been taken in by sensationalist and one-sided media coverage. I read something recently which said: "There is much stronger public support for wind farms than media coverage of the issue would suggest, because a vocal minority who oppose wind farms secure the majority of media and political attention". [7] And I agree with that. In Scotland, surveys show there is a history of high levels of community acceptance and strong support for wind power, with much support from those who lived closest to the wind farms, see Wind power in Scotland#Public opinion. Johnfos (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I'm not saying the report is wrong, as I have no evidence of that, I can't find any evidence of it existing either. The link in the article on Wikipedia is to the industry body BWEA. The links to the document on the BWEA site are dead. There's also evidence that resentment is building up in Scotland - see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9154014/Scotland-to-become-a-wind-farm-landscape-warn-planners.html Drkirkby (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You continually focus on sensationalist and one-sided media reports and say you can't find the evidence for widespread public support for wind farms. Yet I have already mentioned the history of positive local initiatives at Community wind power, National Wind, and Native Wind. I have pointed out that widespread and sustained public opposition to an energy technology has been shown in relation to nuclear power, see anti-nuclear movement and anti-nuclear protests, not in relation to wind power. 13:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Reception varies from region to region. I live in the US, and in large part, wind energy has been embraced. The few notable exceptions have had the majority of media coverage, however. I'm unsure how the media operates there, but I certainly wouldn't use media attention as a barometer of public sentiment here. The last link is an interesting read - thanks for that.--E8 (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect there is a good correlation between media interest and public opinion. It's not in the media's interest to write about subjects the public are not interested in. However, that it not the same thing as saying the public are concerned about the right things. The lives of celebreties seems to fill a lot of the popular media (Daily Mail, Sun, Mirror) although you wont find as much in the Times, Guardian or Telegraph, which are aimed at a more educated audiance. There is undoubtably growing resentment in the UK about wind farms, which can be seen in papers aimed at a wide range of audances. Personally, I used to be very anti-nuclear, (based mainly on the consequencies of a major accident), and have voted for the Green Party in the past. But I've come around to thinking the wind turbines are destroying the environment more than anything else, as they are such an eyesore. Another aspect, is that the earlier wind turbines were located in areas which were not particuly attractive, so they received little opposition. But with those sites filled up, proposals are being made to have turbines in more attractive areas, which people object to more. Although the pro-wind groups rightly say wind-turbines take up very little land, they (or the Wikipedia article), never mention that wind turbines destory a lot of land as they are such an eyesore. Drkirkby (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, so you're here to try to distort the balance of the article, to downplay how much power is being generated and so forth, simply because you personally find them unsightly. Are we supposed to respect that?Teapeat (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

No. But neither should you distort the article so much since you find them the next best thing since sliced bread! Drkirkby (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I live in Denmark, where windturbines are everywhere in the landscape. And quite frankly while there have been some protests, they haven't amassed to much other than small disputes (no more than with any other construction process (bridge,road,freeway,industrial devel. etc)) . So, it is most certainly not a general issue, or even specific to wind. And quite a lot of it can be summed up as NIMBY. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a semi-interesting article in the Guardian about two polls conducted in the UK in 2010 and 2012. One of the findings is that three times as many people would strongly object to them being near their home in 2012 (21%) than they did in 2012 (only 7%). But also that more people tend to stronly support them in 2012 (35%), than they did in 2010 (30%). http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/01/local-opposition-onshore-windfarms-tripled Obviously nuclear power has taken a strong decline since the accident in Japan. These figures are however only based on things local to people, and so don't reflect how they would feel them being located a long way away. Drkirkby (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

While interesting - it also tells another story: That opposition (possibly only in EU) is mainly a UK thing. Which makes an argument for mention in the UK article, but not here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

comment/question is there any indication that these kinds of protests/issues that people are raising here, are different, or more pronounced, than with any other development processes? For instance building a freeway, a bridge, a coal plant, a mine, an industrial park, a Safeway etc? Are there any reliable sources that consider this in a general fashion, as opposed to being (what amounts to anecdotal) local examples? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

An interesting question. I imagine it would depend on whether you consider things locally, or a long way away. I suspect people would care less about something being built further away, where they wont see it, hear it, or otherwise be affected by it, then they would if it was close to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkirkby (talk • contribs)

If so, then we are talking about classic NIMBY. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

In the case of wind farms we are talking about local anecdotal examples, which should be mainly discussed in the relevant article on the individual wind farm. If you want an example of strong, sustained, and widespread public opposition to an energy technology, see anti-nuclear movement. That is very different to the local and fragmented opposition we have for wind farms. And let’s not forget local community support for wind farms, see Community wind energy. In many countries, surveys show there is a history of high levels of community acceptance and strong support for wind power, with much support from those who lived closest to the wind farms, see Wind power in Scotland#Public opinion. Johnfos (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You cited this above, but I'll remark as I did before. The article on Wikipedia points to the non-neutral BWEA web site, which has no valid link to any survey. there are links, but both are dead. Drkirkby (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You continually say you can't find the evidence for widespread public support for wind farms, but any search engine will provide this info. And I have already mentioned many positive local initiatives at Community wind power, National Wind, and Native Wind. I have also pointed out that widespread and sustained public opposition to an energy technology has been shown in relation to nuclear power, see anti-nuclear movement and anti-nuclear protests, not in relation to wind power. 13:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. By my understanding, the article is not overly promotional; however there seems to be some problems with WP:V and maybe also with WP:RS. As for WP:V, the main issue is that it should be correctly reported what the source says and not what we think it says. As it shown above, the share of wind power of installed capacities is a different thing as a share in generation or consumption. So, my conclusion is that we should be very precise what the source says. As for WP:RS, I think that although industrial associations have direct business interest, their data may be useful if supported by the third party RS sources. At the same time, I disagree that IEA is biased in regard of oil-based energy. That is true that in 1973 IEA started as an oil emergency organization; however, as of today it has gained its authority in wide-spread energy issues. I think it would be the best way if data from different sources (wind energy organizations; national energy regulators/authorities; IEA; and maybe IRENA) are reported and compared. Beagel (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I feel it would be better it all these statistics were removed from the lead, and the lead said something more general, like "several countries generate more than 10% of their electricity from wind", then leave a comparison of data from different sources in another section. All those statistics seem a bit mis-placed to me, and they would be even more mis-placed if there was a comparision between the data from different sources. Drkirkby (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the lead should be a summary of all sections and it is not a place to provide a large amount of statistics. When I talked about statistics from the different sources I did not mean having this in the lead but rather in the relevant sections. I also agree that some of the currently presented statistics in the lead should be moved to the relevant sections. Beagel (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly the lead should be a summary, but then there are a lot of stats in the body of this article, see especially the "Wind power capacity and production" section, so it is not out of place to have some of these stats reflected in the lead. I find many wind power overviews have a lot of stats in the first couple of paragraphs, such as this one from the International Energy Agency. With such a fast changing industry it is quite helpful to readers to be up front with the latest info. Johnfos (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes It reads like an advertisement for wind power. Why no 'Criticism' section?Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you be able to provide some examples to illustrate this? Sunray (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dedicated criticism sections are typically in poor style. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes The article neutrality is being deliberately subverted and any negative, even mildly negative information, even if referenced, is being systematically removed from the article.Teapeat (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm disappointed your edit was removed. That seemed to provide more balanced coverage and addressed concerns on both sides. The removal appears a bit random too, considering the user that removed it has no other recent edits on this page and you have been involved in the process here. If there are no objections, I propose your edit be restored, providing the basis for further discussion.--E8 (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes the last para of the lede is promotional in tone, as I have mentioned before. Greglocock (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• No - While the article is imperfect, the language in the article is generally well-cited with reliable sources and not overly promotional. It does discuss the benefits of wind power more than the criticisms, but it should be noted that most media coverage of wind power issues discusses the benefits more than the criticisms, so it is not unreasonable for the article to reflect such RS coverage. That said, there is certainly room in the article for expanded coverage of criticisms of wind power. Instead of simply complaining about the current state of the article, editors interested in balancing the positive and negative aspects of wind power described in the article should BE BOLD and add the language they would like to see, referenced with reliable source citations, of course. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes - I have no stake in this - I am an outsider looking to find information on wind and I was amazed at how starry-eyed the article is. 89.150.118.208 (talk) 07:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Summary of discussion

There is no consensus on whether the article is overly promotional. While some concerns have been raised, there does not appear to be evidence of systemic problems with the article. There has been discussion about the last paragraph of the lead, which may need adjusting. The article, generally, is sourced with reliable sources (although several editors have suggested that there should be more scholarly, or peer-reviewed sources). Sunray (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment on article, tangential to RFC

The problem with the article is not so much POV, promotion, etc; it is lack of structure and discipline. Fix that up and the rest of the problems should go away. I know very well that the field is fraught with conflicting interests and passions, but that is no reason to spoil an important topic with clandestinely channeled flaming and shoving from either side. If the field is important, it can be written to stand on its own merits without advocacy or sabotage. For a start, the lede is a monstrosity, four or five times too large and far too discursive for a lede. It should say no more than what wind power is, and that there is controversy about its merits. 100 words should be plenty. The rest of the current lede material should be cleaned up with a change of tone, and put into an introductory section with perhaps two or three subsections -- call it "Overview and appreciation" or something. Instead of the current assessments of its uselessness or virtues, the article should be reconstructed as recounting (with citations) the conflicting views in the light of confirmed developments and learned publications. I don't mind helping with that, but don't see my way to contributing to yet another mudslinging match. Till someone likes the idea of my participation, I'll lay low and say... less than usual. JonRichfield (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the discussion has got far too heated (although it seems to be calming down now) and the article does need a lot of work. Most of the stuff that's presently in the lead should be in the article itself. The article needs sorting out completely and then the lead needs to be rewritten to sum it all up. There shouldn't need to be a lot of references in the lead as it should be a summation of information that's already referenced in the article. Richerman (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If wind power is so good, why does it need to be heavily subsidized by Governments before anyone will build one? Even Gov O’Malley’s “comrades” of the Peoples’ Republic of Maryland would fall for his taxpayer funded give away to his political cronies to build an off shore wind farm with locked in rates one third higher than Maryland’s already 12 cent/kW Hr cost – the highest on the East coast! The-Expose-inator (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see disclaimer at the top of the page. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article - not for discussions about the subject of articles. Richerman (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Windstalks

Wikipedia seems to know nothing about windstalks (at least I couldn´t find anything), so if someone interested would like to write something, it would be a good thing. http://news.discovery.com/tech/wind-power-without-the-blades.html Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that is an example of Unconventional wind turbines#Piezoelectric. This new proposal for using it, with recognition by independent reviewers (http://www.landartgenerator.org/winners2010.html is the "Land Art Generator" contest it mentions), would be good to mention there. Naming this example there as "Windstalks" would allow Google and wikipedia search-engines to find it. Set a redirect from Windstalks to the specific section might be overkill (it's just a proposal that did not appear to go anywhere after not-winning its competition). DMacks (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

'Wind energy' should redirect to 'wind power'.

There are already good articles on 'wind power' and 'wind turbine'. This article could be merged with them. Dv82matt 17:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Support merge. This page has nothing but an equation and some other minor details that I think would fit nicely in Wind power. Cheers, The Doctahedron, 23:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Support merge. Brian Everlasting (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Support as per [8]. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment Why has an almost 7 year old proposal with one 7 month old support suddenly been moved here? Whatever the reasons were for the proposal 7 years ago they hardly apply to the articles as they are today. If you want to propose a merge you should start a new one - not co-opt two out of date supports. Richerman (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment What's up with simply redirecting wind energy and not copying in any of the content? Delphi234 (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Latest cost research

This February 2012 presentation from NREL and LBL illustrates in no uncertain terms that the levelized cost of wind power is the least it has ever been, which is confirmed by this February 2012 peer reviewed literature review, and according to this May 2012 NREL/LBL conference paper review the cost of wind power is projected to fall more quickly than any other source of energy. —Cupco 19:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Higher particulate matter emissions than other sources

In comparison to the pollution produced by other energy sources, wind power emits a higher amount of particulate matter than that observed in other energy sources, such as natural gas.http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/environment/chapter-1-environmental-benefits/lca-in-wind-energy.html In all other pollution categories it was lower.

Boundarylayer (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I was completely unable to confirm that, having checked the reference. The exact phrase I found was: "All of these quantities, with the only exception being particulates, are far below the emissions of conventional technologies such as natural gas" and there's diagram 1.2 which doesn't seem to compare wind with anything else. The opposite of 'far below' is not 'above', which is what you wrote in the article.Teapeat (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok valid point it doesn't specifically state that, although you could look up the quantity of particulate matter emitted from gas per kWh to compare the two energy sources, but that with be Original research, but either way it's fixed now. I changed it to- a quantity not far below. As that is exactly what the reference states, with that phrasing being the opposite of far below.

Boundarylayer (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Wind power doesn't emit any particulates. Vanishingly small amounts from the bearings maybe. That's not what they mean. It's just that gas produces so very little, because it's clean burning. See for example: [9] So you can't go far below that because there's so little to start with, in context with say, coal, or even oil. That's all they mean.Teapeat (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It is your opinion that gas is clean burning. Compared to what I ask? There are many other energy sources that emit far less particulate matter than gas and therefore also wind. Such as Hydro power. Your point is odd to say the least, as when you compare any energy source against coal or oil you naturally produce less pollution. Everyone is aware of that, as that's obvious. What is not obvious to most people is whether wind produces less particulate matter than Hydro,nuclear,tidal etc. That is why I added the material so people can look themselves.

Stop censoring well referenced valid information on the page.

Boundarylayer (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Gas produces virtually no soot when it's burning well, see the source.[10]

Meanwhile, are you completely insane? Wind power produces no particulates. None! Zero! Zip! Nada!Teapeat (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If you carry on deliberately and systematically adding bias into articles, I will take steps to get you blocked from this article and other articles. This is unacceptable abuse of sources and of your editing priviledges.Teapeat (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Boundarylayer, you appear to be pushing a point. Your edit does not have consensus due to both Teapeat's comments as well as myself, and was reverted. Please discuss. --Izno (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Izno shall we discuss then, The quote from the source will help put this to bed -

Particulates range from 10.3 to 32.3 mg/kWh...All of these quantities, with the only exception being particulates, are far below the emissions of conventional technologies such as natural gas.

Therefore Teapeat is being misleading with their - None! Zero! Zip! Nada!. Furthermore I do not appreciate the threats friend. If you find a source comparing wind's particulate emissions, and show that they are lower than the other non-fossil fuel energy sources - Hydro and Nuclear etc. then I would be keen to see it. The source only states the particulate emissions are essentially not much less problematic than gas, it doesn't mention hydro or nuclear. However at present the article states that - The effects on the environment are generally less problematic than those from other power sources. So don't you see that it is ambiguous what 'generally less' in the article means and what 'other power sources' mean. For example, does 'other power sources' include hydro power and nuclear?

So, again not only is Teapeat being misleading but so too is the article, as it suggests that wind powers environmental effects are less than that of other sources, in every category, non-fossil fuel energy sources included. This is demonstrably false and misleading, as the particulate emissions are apparently not much different than natural gas.

So please, logically outline how summarizing the environmental effects as I have below is unacceptable? and abuse.-

The effects on the environment are generally less problematic than those from other power sources with two exceptions, a disproportionate effect on endangered birds, such as the golden eagle and raptor species,and in one category of air pollution, although lower than coal use, wind power does not emit a quantity of particulate matter far below that observed from natural gas.

* the source - http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/environment/chapter-1-environmental-benefits/lca-in-wind-energy.html

Boundarylayer (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Look it up in the report instead - it is table V.1.2[11]. The quantities involved for particulates in combined cycle natural gas and wind is so low in comparison to any other energy producer that the figures become irrelevant. Please stop doing original research.. Let the WP:RS's come to their own conclusions, without your interpretation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

We meet again Kim, How've you been? Alright Back on topic, this is pretty humorous. Just so I have this straight, first you have reverted the article to a state which included a spelling mistake that I corrected, a mistake by a prior editor that I even explained existed in my edit summary of the article. Yet you funnily enough, chose to ignore reading this entirely, and then accuse me of not being a good editor? why? Did you, or did you not, reinsert a glaring spelling mistake, that I even made you aware of in my edit summary, right smack back into the lede of article?

You also claim Wikipedia:No original research yet the very source you just provided does not compare Wind with, as you put it, every other energy producer... It compares wind with gas, and DOES NOT compare wind with Hydro or Nuclear power as you have falsely suggested, so I'm also wondering now, are you not therefore guilty of Wikipedia:No original research? Seems to me you are making up what the source actually says to fit your POV.

For the millionth time, yes the particulate emissions from wind are certainly lower than burning coal and oil, but they're not at all lower than the particulate emissions per kWh from Nuclear* or much different than the particulate emissions from fossil gas for that matter, which is again, what even your source actually states. Therefore it is misleading to write, as it is presently written in this wind power article -The effects on the environment are generally less problematic than those from other power sources... As what that is saying is patently false.

What are readers even supposed to learn from that? - that the effects on the environment are lower than Hydro? really, seriously? Shocking, that of course is false* and therefore it needs to be balanced and explained to readers. I have thought that, perhaps instead, if the article was changed to read - The effects on the environment are generally less problematic than those from fossil fuel sources... then the issue might disappear, but really the particulate data would still be required as Wind's particulate emissions aren't much different than gas's. So once again the article would be misleading.

• http://www.externe.info/externe_2006/expoltec.pdf An EU Externality study see page 35 figure 9, and read the report in general. Wind power is not less problematic than Hydro, and Wind emits more particulates, Heavy metals and SO2 than Nuclear power, with nuclear powers external costs being dominated by radiation emissions. Page 37 - Moreover note that Due to the relatively high material intensity of PV and wind, the contribution from heavy metals is about 15% and nearly 25%, respectively. & especially read the following - Hydropower exhibits the lowest external costs of all systems, below 0.05 c€/kW..., So no, wind power is not less problematic than all other energy sources at all. Hydropower is generally the least problematic.

Sincerely/Go raibh cóir na gaoithe i gcónaí leat Boundarylayer (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually the source does give the figures for nuclear (higher than wind)[Table V.1.3] - it doesn't give it for hydro... but here is the gist: It doesn't matter! Particulate emissions from wind,hydro,nuclear and CCNG is negligible (close to zero), and comes from the construction&deconstruction rather than the running/energy production phase, the difference between the figures is below the margin of uncertainty about the figures [thus incomparable]. In a nutshell: Particulate emissions from nuclear, CCNG, wind, hydro etc. is of no impact.

Give us a WP:RS that actually focuses on the point that you do - and it might be considered - but until that time: You are simply doing WP:OR (and pushing POV). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The initial sources doesn't appear to give the figures for nuclear, are you looking at a different copy than me?

The second source I have brought into the discussion - http://www.externe.info/externe_2006/expoltec.pdf An EU Externality study see page 35 figure 9, and read the report in general. States quite clearly, Wind power is not less problematic than Hydro, and Wind emits more particulates, Heavy metals and SO2 than Nuclear power, with nuclear powers external costs being dominated by radiation emissions. Page 37 - Moreover note that Due to the relatively high material intensity of PV and wind, the contribution from heavy metals is about 15% and nearly 25%, respectively. & especially read the following - Hydropower exhibits the lowest external costs of all systems, below 0.05 c€/kW..., So no, wind power is not less problematic than all other energy sources at all. Hydropower is generally the least problematic. It is also worth noting that this EU study did not take into account the disproportionate effect wind power usage is having on the population numbers of many large birds.

So, really, here is the gist: It does matter!, as this wiki article is constantly falsely claiming that - Wind power's environmental impact is generally less than other powers sources. A statement that is as misleading as it is patently false. The EU certainly don't corroborate this statement being made in the lede, are you now claiming greater authority than them Kim?

Boundarylayer (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"initial sources doesn't appear" My fault by not being sufficiently dilligent here. There is more than one Table V.1.2 (and V.1.3) - the ones i was referring to are the ones on page 326&327. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I find that the use of 'generally' here means 'usually' or rather 'nearly all', and it certainly doesn't say 'wind power is the least polluting', which is how you are apparently deliberately trying to read it.

But we could consider rewriting it to "Wind power is considered to be the second least polluting source of power after hydroelectricity", and we have a reference for that, and we could even add on 'and better than nuclear', and use the same reference which also supports that. How does that sound?Teapeat (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey man, if you want my thoughts on anything, or want me to respond, you should hit me up on my talk page, as I'm not likely to know otherwise. Alright, considering your long time as an editor, I would have assumed that you would find words such as Generally as utterly useless, uninformative, and not fit for writing an encyclopedia with, with the same going for the other two you suggested - nearly all and usually. Please, can we for once, deal with hard facts and figures that pierce the minds of, and therefore, educate readers, rather than filling them full of general sounding uninformative junk. As for your funny sounding rewrites, just state what the reference does, no more. State the externality cost of each energy source, and include the massive Gas, coal and oil externality costs! As that would be more representative of what the source actually states and therefore - free from wiki editor re-interpretation, or, god forbid, readers falsely assuming Gas, Coal and Oil have no externality cost because we didn't mention them. Make no mistake, Fossil fuels have the highest externality costs, and that is before we include the cost of their greenhouse gas emissions. Frightful stuff!

Secondly, it does not say wind power is better than nuclear in the reference. In actual fact Wind power(if you read the paper and interpret the graph) pollutes more than nuclear power in every air pollution category, with the only reason why nuclear powers externality cost was deemed marginally higher than Wind's, is that nuclear power emits more radiation than the use of/the manufacturing of, Wind farms, and even then the amounts are so low, they only count against nuclear power in terms of negative externality if the conservative Linear no-threshold model holds through for low doses. Which it is looking, more and more like, it is not at all representative of reality. As you'll find it pretty difficult to find hard data that suggests small amounts of radiation is detrimental to your health. As all the people swimming in this majestic looking, higher than background, naturally radioactive rich zone - Guarapari beach, with the people that live there doing so without a discernible epidemiological difference in their life span, or rate of cancer, than their Brazilian counterparts in other regions.

Boundarylayer (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

See the table below the main image on this page. Note that winds emissions were reported as 5-35mg/kWh Particulate matter milligram/kWh, higher than hydro, nuclear, and even possibly worse than fossil gas/ 'natural gas' too.

This is in line with the initial source that got me interested in this 'Particulates range from 10.3 to 32.3 mg/kWh' http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/environment/chapter-1-environmental-benefits/lca-in-wind-energy.html

Boundarylayer (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

No one is disputing the particulate figures Boundarylayer... What is disputed is the focus on figures that are too small to matter. The major emitters of particulates are Coal and Biomass - nuclear, wind, solar, etc. are all so small in comparison that their emissions is negligible. It is 100% irrelevant whether windenergy is emitting more than nuclear or the reverse - since both types of energy are close to 0 in emissions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I am glad you do not dispute the sources. However I think we'll just have to agree to disagree with your opinion that the particulate matter emissions are figures too small to matter, as there is no threshold Dose–response relationship of particulate matter that below which won't harm your health. Are you aware of one? So they are certainly not negligible emissions as they wouldn't even be given values if they were, would they not? For example neutrinos produced by fission do not affect people, they don't even affect anything really, so they're not on anyones lists of 'pollution' and therefore produce truly negligible effects on people. Now as I have repeatedly had to say in this discussion: Yes the particulate emissions from Wind, Nuclear and Hydro are ~twenty to three hundred times lower than the particulate emissions from Coal and Biomass, but are they negligible emissions? - no, that is just editor POV.

Fundamentally(and I don't think this is irrelevant) is I would like to see, a total pollution life cycle table per unit of energy generated, such as provided below, added to each and every wikipedia energy source article, a clear table with the data on pollution, in every single pollution category(including Sievert values), attributed to each energy source.

I think this would be a good addition to wikipedia and would help people assess each energy source for its merits and downfalls, what do you think? something like an expanded table of the one below the main image on this page.

However I am not attempting to put into the article that Nuclear power is regarded to have lower negative externality costs than wind power.As Hydro and Wind were deemed to have slightly lower externality costs(although they did not take wind turbine strikes with flying vertebrae into account)according to the authoritative ExternE project, with the team listing the most common power sources from lowest externality cost to highest as: Hydro,Wind,Nuclear,solar thermal,solar PV,fossil gas,oil and coal as highest. Now you may be wondering to yourself, as I was - nuclear power pretty much has lower pollution emissions in every category when compared to wind so how does it have a higher externality cost? The reason is the ExternE team list radiation as nuclear's primary externality: due to the effects of the controversial, and conservative, radiation Linear no-threshold model, and that is why its externality cost was deemed by the team to have a slightly higher externality cost than winds.

So what do you think about the pollution table idea?

Boundarylayer (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

effects on endangered avian species

Although all artificial structures can and do kill birds, Wind power is having a disproportionate effect on certain avian species that are struggling for survival, such as the precarious US population of golden eagles. The Spanish Ornithological Society has stated that Spain's 18,000 wind turbines may be killing 6 million to 18 million birds and bats per year. An especially vulnerable group are raptors, which are slow to reproduce and favor the same high wind speed corridors that wind turbine companies build turbines in.http://www.nature.com/news/the-trouble-with-turbines-an-ill-wind-1.10849 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 08:19, 13 February 2013‎ (UTC)

Incomplete life cycle data for wind vs. other power sources

This is a note advising editors to be cognizant of the fact that the many life cycle reports on particulate emissions/contaminants, etc..., which compare various energy sources (wind/nuclear/coal/natural gas/oil/hydro/etc..) may not be fully revealing or accurate.

Of note is the estimated "life" of the particular powerplant. In such life cycle reports, the tower and the wind turbine's working components (nacelle and rotor) have a finite lifespan before they need to be replaced or refurbished, commonly listed in the 20-25 year range. However the concrete and steel foundations for wind turbines obviously have a much longer lifespan, perhaps 100 years or more, and it would be absolutely fair to say that even if a wind park had all its above ground components completely replaced (instead of only being refurbished), its new wind turbines would be installed on the turbine's existing foundations.

In that case, unless the emissions/contaminants/energy figures for a wind turbine's foundation were factored to reflect their ultimate life (e.g. 20%–25% of a single time case), then such reports are overestimating the environmental effects of wind turbines. Be aware as well that above ground structural and working components can have a much longer lifespan than the 20-25 years commonly listed. Their structures, nacelles, rotors and working components have some commonality with their aeronautical analogs, airplanes. DC-3s built in 1935 are still flying many passengers safely about today because they are properly maintained and repaired on a timely basis. Current era jetliners are allowed to exceed their rated lifetimes (e.g. typical: 80,000 flight hours) after they undergo a structural upgrade program. There's no reason to expect anything different for wind turbines. A lifespan of 20-25 years, would be a minimum, not a maximum, with proper maintenance and repairs (the caveat being that they were properly designed to avoid short fatigue lives) so again the life cycle figures may be overestimating the environmental impacts of wind energy. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Grid costs of renewables

The article should refer to the more recent report on grid system costs of renewables in a report from the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD: "Nuclear Energy and RenewablesÑ System Effects in Low-Carbon Electricity Systems", OECD 2012, available at http://www.oecdbookshop.org or at . You can also look at for a presentation based on the report.

This ia a cross country study using the same methodology of the grid system costs of generating technologies. It shows much higher grid system costs of wind energy than reported in the Wikipedia article, which quotes a forum from 2006 and a UK report from 2009. It is possible that the Nuclear Energy Agency Report is biased against renewables, but since this appears to be the latest paper on the subject, you should at least consider the possibility that grid costs are that high. 200.27.27.9 (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Query: Should it be "Iran" or "Persia"?

The article states "The first windmills were in use in Iran at least by the 9th century". Pretty much all my friends from that part of the world (who live here in the US) prefer the name "Persia". Especially when referring to historical events.

Before I change it, I figured I'd ask around. Thanks.

wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

I have not visited this page before, but I strongly feel that it does not show a neutral point of view. It seems to me to have been written by people who in the main are strong advocates of wind power, who seem very keen to minimise the many real isssues/difficulties with this technology. Just one example - The section which seems desperate to claim that wind turbines cause less avian deaths than other generation technologies!!! May I make one small contribution. The section on small scale wind power makes reference to wind turbines in urban environments, and talks about wind shear and turbulence, but omits the key fact that the capacity factor that is achieveable is low, and rather unpredictable. A good reference for this is the Warwick Wind Survey which can be accessed here: http://www.warwickwindtrials.org.uk/resources/Warwick+Wind+Trials+Final+Report+.pdf. I went to a lecture by one of the consultants who carried out this work - the general message is that it is very difficult to get good performance from small wind turbines in an urban environment. Alsos, given current knowledge, it is not possible to make a reliable prediction of the likely performance at any given urban site (As a further piece of evidence, I note that the hardware chain B&Q in the UK started selling domestic sized wind turbines a couple of years back, but gave up after a year or so, because of poor experience. They are still selling solar PV and solar water heaters). I don't know how to edit Wikipedia itself, so could someone add in the reference to the Warwick wind survey? Is there anyone out there who would like to tackle the NPOV question? DMWard (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you mean the "Environmental effects" section. Wikipedia is built on references. In the avian case, it is a meta-analysis of 616 individual studies, so it seems very well supported. If you can find a similar thorough study to suggest otherwise, please show it here so we can compare. The economy of scale and height dependency could well be included in the Small-scale section. This article is a parent article for all wind power related articles, and as such is only intended to provide an overview - for details, see individual articles. At 120k it is 20k above the 100k soft limit, and could probably use a trim. TGCP (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Dubious Statement in Article

This critique is in regards to the following portion of the article:

Wind is the movement of air across the surface of the Earth, affected by areas of high pressure and of low pressure. The surface of the Earth is heated unevenly by the Sun, depending on factors such as the angle of incidence of the sun's rays at the surface (which differs with latitude and time of day) and whether the land is open or covered with vegetation. Also, large bodies of water, such as the oceans, heat up and cool down slower than the land. The heat energy absorbed at the Earth's surface is transferred to the air directly above it and, as warmer air is less dense than cooler air, it rises above the cool air to form areas of high pressure and thus pressure differentials. The rotation of the Earth drags the atmosphere around with it causing turbulence. These effects combine to cause a constantly varying pattern of winds across the surface of the Earth.

1) The citation link above appears broken to me. The home page http://www.renewableuk.com/ doesn't count as a valid reference.

2) I am disputing the accuracy of the claim that "The rotation of the Earth drags the atmosphere around with it causing turbulence." This is simply untrue, although I am going to have a hard time finding a citation that specifically falsifies this statement.

3) I would like to work with the individual who made the page semi-protected to improve its quality. While I am new to Wikipedia edits, I am willing to improve this portion of the article with accurate and well-cited information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernel64 (talk • contribs) 19:52 23 July 2013

• 1) Here's an archived page version with the information discusses in the article; generally dead links are be tagged so a bot will fix them automatically (I'll do so manually when I have a bit more time). There are MANY archive versions that may or may not contain different updates.

• 2) The Earth's rotation is what causes the Coreolis effect - clearly a form of atmospheric turbulence.--E8 (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

E8, thank you for your prompt reply.

I don't want to argue for the sake of argument. I believe, however, that a basic understanding of atmospheric turbulence is crucial to understanding the scientific basis for wind power. Thus, the problematic treatment of wind physics in the article needs to be corrected. Below I will lay out my argument for why the article is incorrect, with citations. At some point, I would like to improve the article - but I feel that I must convince the community that something needs to be improved.

First, you correctly point out that the earth's rotation is responsible for the Coreolis Effect. More precisely, it is the angular momentum (vorticity) of the earth that causes Coreolis. (http://snowball.millersville.edu/~adecaria/DERIVATIONS/Vorticity.pdf) (http://www.geo.cornell.edu/ocean/p_ocean/ppt_notes/14_Vorticity.pdf)

The Coreolis Effect is not a "form of atmospheric turbulence". Turbulence implies an energy cascade to smaller scales. The opposite of turbulent flow is "laminar flow" [12]. Turbulence and vorticity are intertwined but distinctly seperate physical processes. (http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/~rsalmon/chap4.pdf)

On the Wiki page for Coreolis that you cite "The centrifugal force acts outwards in the radial direction and is proportional to the distance of the body from the axis of the rotating frame. These additional forces are termed inertial forces, fictitious forces or pseudo forces.[1] They allow the application of Newton's laws to a rotating system. They are correction factors that do not exist in a non-accelerating or inertial reference frame." A fictious force cannot cause drag (implying a change of kinetic energy), and thus cannnot cause turbulence (which causes drag generally).

Finally, if the earth really did drag the atmosphere, angular momentum would constantly be being imparted from the earth to the atmosphere - thus the earth would spin down until an equilibrium was reached. On the contrary, the atmosphere puts a torque on the earth that imparts angular momenum. The fundamental physics going on is a trade of heat (sun to earth to atmosphere) for momentum (atmosphere to earth). Will have to cite later.

All of the above is simply an argument that the page *could be* improved with regard to the physical basis behind wind power, and nothing more. I will post a re-write of the section if it is likely that it will receive legtimate criticism. I don't want to waste my time if getting the changes merged is ~0% from the outset.

Sincerely, Kernel64 (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

A well-explained clarification of the nuances - clearly you have a deep understanding of the topic and you're citing sources - both of which are welcome and needed on Wikipedia. If you propose a revision, I'll be happy to review it and post it if no admins check in prior.--E8 (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Wind Turbine Syndrome

With reference to the unknown health effects of industrial wind turbines a new form of public health sickness maybe appearing namely "wind turbine syndrome".

According to the French Academy of Medicine "The harmful effects of sound related to wind turbines are insufficiently assessed"

The Academy states that "While waiting for precise studies of the risks connected with these installations, the Academy recommend halting wind turbine construction closer than 1.5 km from residences."

In July 2010, the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council NHMRC released a public Statement: "Wind Turbines and Health and supporting evidence Wind Turbines and Health: A rapid review of the evidence. The Public Statement recommends that, to minimise any potential impacts of wind turbines on surrounding areas, authorities take a precautionary approach and continue to monitor research outcomes........Residents living close to wind farms have raised concerns about potential adverse health impacts from wind turbines including nausea, headaches, anxiety and sleep and learning difficulties."

NHMRC is currently undertaking a systematic review of the existing scientific literature to examine the possible impacts of wind farms on human health, including audible and inaudible noise.

Emerging evidence suggests a plausible link between the siting of industrial wind turbines close to people and resulting health effects.

According to a study by U.S. noise control engineer Rick James wind farms generate the same symptoms as sick Building Syndrome. - the condition that plagued office workers in the 80's and 90's as a result of what was eventually discovered to be low frequency noise (LFN) caused by misaligned air conditioning systems.

Sleep specialist Dr. Chris Hanning believes LFN and ampliture modulation stimulates an alert response, leading to arousal episodes through the night that make restful sleep impossible.

In light of this potential public health hazard I think it would be more balanced to mention these issues rather than just relying on the opinions of industrial wind turbine industry.

Justin Thomas 4th August 2013--Pow007 (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Such as how it is mentioned here? — Reatlas (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, following your references you point to the daily mail, twice, and an Australian study that hasn't even been done yet. You also talk about sick building syndrome as being caused by low frequency noise, but all the references I have found say that it's caused by poor ventilation, moulds and chemical contaminants in the air etc. In short I'm failing to see any reliable science here.GliderMaven (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Denmark and wind subsidies in general.

http://www.energy.eu/ Scroll down to Household electricity In 2012 the Danes spent just over 30 euro cents per unit of electricity. That is the most expensive electricity price in all of Europe, and over double the cost in many other countries such as Bulgaria and France. So despite Denmark's so called favorable wind resources. It appears all this talk of cheap wind is just that, a load of hot air. Boundarylayer (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Boundarylayer (talk)

You failed to examine why the price is high.. and instead are assuming that it is because of expensive energy production. And because of that you come to the wrong conclusion. The price of electricity is high in Denmark because the state taxes every kWh at the consumer level[13]. (roughly 40% of the price of electricity is tax). This is the reason that original research/coming to your own conclusions based on data is unacceptable in an encyclopedia. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I did examine why, taxes and levies excluded Denmark's electricity generating price is still one of the most expensive in Europe. See - http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Energy_price_statistics

Furthermore examining the Denmark reason for having to have such high taxes and levy costs, they are likely due to Wind power Subsidies, which in the USA are, Per megawatt hour, natural gas, oil and coal received 64 cents, hydropower 82 cents, nuclear $3.14, wind $56.29 and solar a whopping $775.64.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903285704576559103573673300.html

Sincerely, Boundarylayer (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. However, contrary to what you seem to assume the Danish people certainly do not have room temperature IQs. For example, Denmark's electricity tax to pay for wind power in 2004-2008 was 0.0054 euros/kWh, but it is estimated that with spot pricing of Denmarks wind power on international markets that this was offset by an average of 0.0027 euros/kWh. In 2008 the spot pricing of the wind energy was greater than the subsidy.[14]Teapeat (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The Danish people are, in actuality increasing the percentage of energy generated by wind up to 50% over the next 8 years. I think if their relatively high electricity price was due to wind power, that they certainly would have noticed, and they would not be doing this.

I can only reiterate that Wikipedia is not the place for your original research.Teapeat (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No, Boundarylayer. You didn't look at the figures - since your claim that "Denmark's electricity generating price is still one of the most expensive in Europe" is false and directly contradicted by the source that you give (EUSTAT). The price of Danish electricity before taxes and network cost (ie. the electricity generating price) then it is #13 of 27 in the very table you give as evidence[15] (for industrial consumers it is the 3rd lowest in Europe). If we also take the network cost into account, Danish prices are still roughly in the middle.

So No... You didn't actually check anything, since the high Danish electricity price, as i stated, entirely stems from tax and levies at the consumerlevel. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)There is a nice graph for 2009, at the top of this document that illustrates this fact rather clearly. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Boundarylayer, the Wall Street Journal opinion piece article you're quoting above had its cost figures neatly compiled by the Institute for Energy Research, the kid brother of the right-wing American Energy Alliance. Those are the people who have been funded by, or as some would say, are fronts for, the Koch brothers, ExxonMobil, the CATO Institute, Enron and a slew of other right-wing drill-baby-drill money-grubbers bent on lighting up their $250 cigars with $100 bills at the world's expense while their ocean drilling rigs and oil tankers are spewing out hundreds of millions of barrels of oil spills. So, yes, your credibility for using such scum bucket sources is shot, wholly unsurprising since those figures are coming from a news rag running along side of Fox News, led by what many believe is the biggest scum bucket of all, Rupert Murdoch. Hopefully he, his son and all his cronies will join Conrad Black in prison sometime soon for all the phone hacking that went on.

You, and they, are also neatly ignoring the medical and social costs of dealing with millions of diseases and deaths yearly world-wide caused by the energy sources that you, and they, advocate. Let's see what the subsidy costs look like after those calculations get done. What do you figure for an unwanted emphysema or cancer death being worth, €500,000 minimum? How about the flooding of a coastal city, €25,000,000,000? HarryZilber (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to believe you HarryZilber, it sure would be great if wind power really was as cheap as you hype it up to be, but the wall street journal's figures are in line with other sources and therefore corroborated. Moreover people have a right to know how the low carbon power sources they are supporting with subsidies compare. That is, what exactly is the value for money people are receiving. This is an encyclopedia after all, and should not be a promotional advertisement for any particular energy sector.

A 2010 study by Global Subsidies Initiative compared global relative subsidies of different energy sources. Results show that fossil fuels receive 0.8 US cents per kWh of energy they produce (although it should be noted that the estimate of fossil fuel subsidies applies only to consumer subsidies and only within non-OECD countries), nuclear energy receives 1.7 cents / kWh, renewable energy (excluding hydroelectricity) receives 5.0 cents / kWh and biofuels receive 5.1 cents / kWh in subsidies.http://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/relative_energy_subsidies.pdf

http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/

The EIA have also catalogued the massive amount of subsidies going to wind despite it producing a tiny amount of energy. See table ES3, ES4 & ES5.

This second and third source now completely corroborates the Wall Street Journal's figures, and the order of the energy sources are exactly the same in all the sources, so despite your hotly expressed opinions against the WSJ as a source, (the units in the WSJ figures were expressed in cents/MWh and not kWh in case you were wondering), by the way, I have not looked into your right-wing conspiracy claims HarryZilber, it may very well be true, and I was going to look into it but then I found the above reference that do not appear to have any left or right-wing affiliations. Wind is getting a disproportionate amount of subsidies for the energy it generates in comparison to other low carbon power sources - Hydro and Nuclear. That is the facts jack.

I also don't know where you are coming from with assuming I want coal or fossil fuels in general, in fact you wind guys seem to be more interested in pushing fossil gas as you are presently dependent on it, to make wind appear economical, Denmark does, 70% of Denmark's electricity production comes from fossil fuels. Moreover it is intellectually dishonest to be expressing subsidies without units, as value for money should be presented, the absolute dollars given to each sector, as presented in the article, tells us less than nothing, as all the other sources produce so much more power, they deserve the higher absolute subsidy stipend.

When it comes to fossil fuels though, you should naturally add a section on the environmental and heathl costs of using each energy source, such as natural gas and coal particulate matter linked deaths and CO2 damages. Including externality costs of each energy sources, for sure is important, as these costs could also be considered something tax payers do pay for(an indirect subsidy). In comparison you should include the fact that the externality costs of Hydro, wind and nuclear power(in order of increasing externality costs) are all tiny in comparison to fossil fuels externality costs. Check out the ExternE project on each energy sources externality costs for exact figures, as they have calculated the the medical and social costs of dealing with millions of diseases and deaths yearly world-wide caused by energy sources that you brought up. They have assigned a cents/kWh figure to each energy source. Here's the EU document, look at page 35 to 37 for the cents/kWh externality cost of each energy source. http://www.externe.info/externe_2006/expoltec.pdf Yes that's right Coal and Gas cause 4-6 cent/kWh of damage(externality), and that is excluding the damage done by global warming from these sources. Incredibly right?

Kim, you apparently just pulled that 13 figure out of thin air. Look, all you have to do is look at the graph and you will see Denmark have a higher electricity generation cost than the EU average. Therefore Denmark have(even excluding the countries insane tax rate) one of the highest cost electricity generating rates in Europe. If you're above the average, that means you're one of the highest, I thought that was pretty elementary knowledge.

Boundarylayer (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Boundarylayer: Here is a bit of math help for you: An average of a number of values.. does not imply that half of those values must be above, and half below. That is the case here. If you really are too lazy to check yourself in the table i provided you - then take a ruler to the graph that you are referring to. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The document you provided is from 2009-2010, so unfortunately a bit outdated I'm afraid. Naturally yes, in respect to an Average, you are technically quite right kim, you can have, for example, one large outlier(such as Cyprus in the below graph) skew the EU average value upwards. For talks sake, if the Cypriot basic electricity price was even higher than it actually is now, say a whopping $4.00/kWh, then every single 27 EU nation could claim they generated electricity at a cost 'below the EU27 average' price, except that single Cypriot outlier.

Although in reality, when every nations basic generation price is actually scattered fairly randomly around the same small window - from 5 to 30 cents/kWh - When a country has an above average basic electricity price, it does imply that it is one of the nations with the highest rates i.e half of nations must be above and half below the average in this case. However to be more precise, I should have simply wrote above average, instead of one of the highest, as that was not entirely accurate to have written. As for the eurostat graph from 2011 it does suggest that(excluding the punitive tax rates that makes citizens in Denmark pay the highest/most expensive price for electricity in the EU27) Denmark has a slightly above average EU basic electricity rate(with it not being surprising that it is around the average rate, considering ~70% of Denmark's electricity production comes from fossil fuels and that is about the EU average.

Moreover, do you know where the equivalent eurostat EU27 2012 figures are? It seems a bit odd that we're left having to deal with data from two years ago, when things might be very different now.

In regards the subsidies edit that was reverted(remember, I never actually made a remark on Denmark's electricity rate in the article), are we all agreed upon the following sources as reliable? and are we all agreed on expressing subsidies in relative terms, and not absolute terms is the better metric to present in the article?

A 2010 study by Global Subsidies Initiative compared global relative subsidies of different energy sources. Results show that fossil fuels receive 0.8 US cents per kWh of energy they produce (although it should be noted that the estimate of fossil fuel subsidies applies only to consumer subsidies and only within non-OECD countries), nuclear energy receives 1.7 cents / kWh, renewable energy (excluding hydroelectricity) receives 5.0 cents / kWh and biofuels receive 5.1 cents / kWh in subsidies.http://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/relative_energy_subsidies.pdf

http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/

The Energy Information Administration have also cataloged the massive amount of subsidies going to non-hydro renewable energy sector, despite it producing a relatively small amount of energy. See table ES3, ES4 & ES5.

Boundarylayer (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, i was not speaking about average (you were! Hint: #13 out of 27 countries is not an average). Secondly: Information about non-OECD countries is rather irrelevant to Denmark, since it is an OECD country. Thirdly: US subsidies is irrelevant to Denmark since Denmark is not the US. Fourthly: This discussion is not entangled with a particular revert - but instead is focusing on your original comment, which is entirely personal opinon, original research, and not in correspondance with real world data. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you might be mistaken, this discussion is entangled with a particular revert, The revert you conducted on March 2nd 2013 to be precise. I expressed the subsidy rates of each energy source in relative terms: dollars per unit of energy generated, instead of the present practice in the article of displaying the subsidies in absolute terms. However this edit was entirely reverted, and HarryZilber and I were discussing the edit above. I have now provided 2 further references that largely corroborates the reference that Harry took issue with, so I ask, can the data be put back in? My edit summary comment on March 2nd was - Sleight of hand balanced, how about you show subsidies relative to the amount of energy produced, that's a far better metric than absolute quantities. Which I'm sure you'll agree with

In respect to your Fourthly - my original talk page discussion with you and other users here, was on how the Danes are charged an extremely high electricity rate, the highest in the EU27, a fact that is backed up by the real world data.] I would like to know why the Danes and Germans are taxed so much? Is it due to Feed-in tariffs?

Boundarylayer (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

No, you didn't just note that Denmark had high energy prices - you conflated that with a implication that it was because of wind that it was expensive. Which real world data doesn't support. No one ever disputed that Denmark has the highest electricity prices for consumers - that would be silly - since we do have those.

As for your last question: Denmark has high energy taxes (≳40%), because politically Danes think that high energy prices are an incentive to rethink energy usage/production. This has worked extremely well in the past - for instance in the 70's (during the energy crisis), when it gave an incentive for insulating houses/windows, installing thermostats, buying smaller cars etc etc., and reduced the amount of energy needed significantly. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

That sounds plausible as a reason alright, but, and I recognize this data may not be freely available, but is there a break down of where each one of your taxed cents go? Does it all go into R&D to find cheaper and cleaner energy sources? As, if it instead went to line the pockets of Vestas, that would not be ideal. The incentive scheme you speak of, sounds good, but I'm wondering how could it work when you are not in such a wealthy nation, and there is Fuel poverty in your country? A problem which is sadly increasing in the EU27. Furthermore, as most people simply cannot afford to buy an electric car with the combination of high capital costs, and electricity prices. If it was given that electricity was cheap, that is, if electricity prices were cheap enough to make it worthwhile and the electricity grid was substantially free of fossil fuels to make it more ecologically sound, more people would make the switch would they not? I was recently pricing an electric car for a friend and working out how much CO2 and money they might save, and it does not look very appealing - even with the free motor tax grant. Although I convinced them to buy it anyway, simply to support the fledgling sector and the novelty factor. If I were in Denmark with the electricity rate as it is, it would simply look insane to try and convince someone to go electric. So are you not going to need to supply cheap electricity to motivate people to switch from fossil fuel cars to less polluting electric cars? Although fundamentally its just a philosophical difference of approach I suppose.

I don't mean to seem to be knocking your Governments plan, my country isn't doing much better in terms of CO2 emissions per unit of GDP and in a lot of other metrics.The nobleness of energy conservation schemes, such as helping those who can't afford new home insulation, thermostats etc is naturally something that we can both agree on, as beneficial to all.

Boundarylayer (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A list of energy tax money would be useful for this article. The Danish energy tax system is rather convoluted and old fashioned, as surplus industry heat is prohibited from replacing gas for the widespread District heating, and even wind power pays CO2 tax! Large heat pumps could easily be a source for the district heating, but are prevented by the tax system. But a hidden cause for the high energy tax (electricity as well as for oil&gas) may simply be to provide cash for the wellfare system (hospitals, social benefits +much more) - money is extracted where it can be found regardless of source, not nescessarily where it is reasonable. The cost of filling an electric car is still much lower than filling a petrol car. But now we are getting beyond the scope of Wiki Talk. TGCP (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, I just published a new October 2013 on Denmark's energy policy that should help settle this debate. It is available here http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.106 but if anybody needs a copy, simply email me. Here is also the best place to get authoritative energy stats on Denmark: http://www.ens.dk/node/2228. Bksovacool (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

using wind power on a commercial basis

The claim in the article is that 83 countries are using wind power on a commercial basis. There is a reference, but it's not clear what part of the document justifies this claim. I assume that most people would understand 'a commercial basis' to be as opposed to 'a subsidized basis'. In the UK for instance, wind power is subsidized via a very high feed-in tariff on a long-term contract, so this doesn't constitute the normal meaning of a commercial basis. I suggest 'a commercial basis' is deleted unless it can be properly supported. Gravuritas (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be clarified that "commercial" here means production into the national grid alongside other generator types (coal, gas..), not just stand-alone turbines or research turbines. I can't think of a better word, but feel free to suggest one. TGCP (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This is frequently misunderstood. The new-build cost of onshore wind power is actually very typically lower than the new-build cost of coal-fire plants per kilowatt hour delivered to the customer in the UK. The feed-in tarrif in the UK is mostly just a device to allow wind power to compete with fossil fuel systems that have their own subsidises, and are largely paid off now (costs of essentially any electric power generation are mostly to buy the system initially), so that the power systems can be installed before we run out of capacity as the old plant wears out and is taken out of service and to reduce pollution. Given this, in the UK, the generation of wind power is reasonably considered to be a commercial undertaking.GliderMaven (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It may well be frequently misunderstood, and you're clearly someone who's misunderstood it. Given that the fuel is free, obviously the capital cost of wind power per kWh used is massively more than the capital cost of fossil power plants, or else there would be nothing other than wind power used. Please note that a lot of the puff-pieces about wind power refer to kW or MW of capacity, which needs to be divided by a factor of 3 or 4 to get kW availability. The costs of nukes, wind and solar are mainly _capital_ costs (and clean-up in the case of nukes); the costs of fossil fuel stations are mainly _running_ costs, (and in some people's view, the uncharged costs of CO2 emission), so you're assertion about "essentially any ... power generation" is also wildly incorrect. Given this, your belief that generation of wind power is reasonably considered to be a commercial undertaking is not founded on the facts. The word or rather phrase for power sources that feed into the national grid, needs to be "power sources that are used to feed the national grid" or something similar, and "commercial" is not a synonym for that.

Gravuritas (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it's the other way around, the fossil fuel plants are more expensive per peak power, because they need expensive boilers, condensers etc. which wind power plants don't need only the turbine, but fossil plants also generate power a higher percentage of the time which compensates for their higher upfront cost, to a large degree. Wind power though is still getting cheaper, as production of the wind turbines continues to ramp up, and with design and scale improvements, so fossil fuel plants are falling behind over time.GliderMaven (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

And again, you've misunderstood, the number that people really care about is the cost of the electricity that comes out their wall socket; the cost per kilowatt hour, and that's the cost that wind power generates less expensively than fossil plants, and with less pollution, and this is continuing to improve.GliderMaven (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

And that's true when you strip away the subsidies, it's not the subsidies making the wind power look good (for onshore power.)GliderMaven (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

If you go to cost of electricity by source there's a table. Wind is second only to some natural gas systems, and cheaper than the least polluting of those.GliderMaven (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The 25% for Denmark is now better sourced thanks and also thank you for the cost of electricity by source table.

If you look at the table you cited, taking the US dept of Energy's estimates for 2018, the capital cost for natural gas installations ranges from 16 to 44 USDMWh and the capital cost for wind is 70 or 193 depending on whether its onshore or offshore. So the capital cost of wind is higher than the capital cost of natural gas (not all fossil fuel plants, my mistake, above), and your "higher upfront cost" for fossil fuel plants is wrong, again. Note also from the same table that wind is not dispatchable, which signifies that further capital and possibly running costs are needed elsewhere in the system in order to use wind. Given that you've got the basics wrong, I suggest that we don't go scaling the high cliffs of 'more expensive per peak power'.

I haven't misunderstood anything about wall sockets. You need to understand that people want electricity from wall sockets when they want to watch their favourite soap, not when Poseidon is stirring up the waves and whoever the God of the Wind is, is not asleep. That timing issue constitutes a massive & costly set of engineering problems for wind (and wave) power which a lot of talented people are working on, and in some cases have partially solved. Fluffily pretending (or possibly believing) that wind is wonderful just because its free is for the peanut gallery, so let's stick to the facts. Getting back to my original query- has anyone got a reason why .."83 countries around the world are using wind power on a commercial basis" shouldn't be changed to "in 83 countries around the world, wind power is being supplied to the grid"?

Gravuritas (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

With a gas plant you'll get 50-60+% capacity factor and more like 35% for wind, so if you think about it, the upfront cost is much higher for gas per kW.

You're also quite wrong about the extra costs to deal with wind power. For example, the UK has spent basically nothing to integrate wind power into the grid. All that happens is that when the wind forecast says the wind is going to blow they schedule the other sources to cut back or even stop their production. Because the other sources cost money to run, the net cost of the electricity goes down, and so does the pollution. Most of the rest of the grid production is already paid off, so it's mostly fuel costs and similar. If it ever got to the point where we needed more power when the wind wasn't blowing, the grid would probably just add connectivity to the continent and buy and mostly sell electricity there and modulate the hydro, fossil and nuclear power elsewhere; the UK would almost certainly become a big net producer of electricity, because wind power is cheap and non polluting; and other countries don't want the pollution either.GliderMaven (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly not free, but it's about the cheapest, cleanest electricity there is, only solar is comparable (and that's getting cheaper at a very high rate too, at the moment solar is quite expensive, but even then is grid parity in some places).GliderMaven (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't bother thinking about it, just read the numbers off the table

GO TO THE REFERENCE YOU POINTED ME AT, AND LOOK AT THE TABLE "Estimated Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources, 2018"

READ THE COLUMN HEADED "Levelized capital cost"

Notice that the SMALL numbers are opposite the Natural Gas Fired entries.

S o G A S h a s a l o w e r c a p I t a l c o s t t h a n w I n d.

End of.Gravuritas (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Levelised capital cost presumably per kWh, but not per kW, yes, the US estimates are lower for gas (without carbon capture, and they're more expensive with carbon capture). It's not quite comparing like-for-like; an advantage of wind is the very low levels of pollution, although gas is better than coal on that score. And note that gas has ongoing fuel costs, which are subject to global price fluctuations, so there's no guarantee that it would remain at a low price for the consumer, but wind power can only be sold locally and can be contracted at a fixed price.GliderMaven (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

And the kW thing is also important, there's a number of complexities in the energy market like spot pricing to do with ensuring that the energy is available when it's needed.GliderMaven (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement does not adequately reflect the source

"The intermittency of wind seldom creates problems when used to supply up to 20% of total electricity demand" is not a fair summary of the source. A better summary of the source is-

• that the costs of integrating up to 20% wind power are low to moderately low, depending on the mix of other power sources available
• that as the %penetration by wind power of electricity generation rises, the capacity factor is reduced.

Gravuritas (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the second point the source is trying to make is that if the average penetration goes above 20%, when the wind is blowing strongly all over (which is fairly rare), the instantaneous wind power power jumps by about 3 times or more above the average, so the wind generators may have to artificially turn down the generation to avoid oversaturating the country and that will reduce the effective capacity factor. But that only usually applies if the country doesn't have enough interconnect to the neighbouring countries to sell the excess and it doesn't possess other storage like pumped hydro, and it's pretty rare that this happens (but it's more likely the more wind is added, below about 20% it can't really happen). Note that Denmark is going for 50% penetration, they live next door to Norway, who have big hydro resources they can use for storage, Norway just turn off the taps when the wind blows and hold the water back for when the wind drops again.GliderMaven (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

So I don't really find that that summary is inaccurate.GliderMaven (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

If you would like to change the sentence to read "In Denmark, the intermittency...demand" then I am happy to agree it. That's not the way the sentence currently reads, so forget Denmark and forget countries with a lot of pumped hydro. I am questioning the general statement that I quoted, so if you wish to defend the statement, you need to do so for all countries, or at least for an "average" country. Read the report again, taking particular note of what they say about Germany, for instance, which does not have a lot of pumped storage hydro and hence is much nearer to being an average country worldwide than the Nordic countries.

Gravuritas (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I would not like that, as that is not accurate. The source says that the average country can handle 20% penetration of wind power generation without any major secondary costs, without having pumped or ordinary hydro. As with Denmark, countries can go well above 20% if they have good interconnection or matching hydro resources of virtually any kind.GliderMaven (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I have had a reasonably quick read-through of the source, looking for your claim that "the average country can handle 20% penetration of wind power generation without any major secondary costs, without having pumped or ordinary hydro" or words to the same effect, and I can't see it. Please tell me on which page you think this claim is, and what precise words are used. (Given the expanding use of wind, it's probably a bit wobbly using a 2006 source in 2013 anyway, but let's try to get to first base.)

Gravuritas (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Onshore wind to reach grid parity by 2016

I can't get to cite 1, "Onshore wind to reach grid parity by 2016", as it's subscription only, but the headline as quoted in the section header does not seem to match the words in the article "For new constructions, onshore wind is an inexpensive source of electricity, competitive with or in many places cheaper than fossil fuel plants". Can someone dig out a quote from the source to justify the words? Gravuritas (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried finding something about cost, but it's pretty complex : page VI component cost & page 14 cost is a wave TGCP (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't checked the source but there's this: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf which is used at: Cost_of_electricity_by_source#US_Department_of_Energy_estimates, if you check the last column of the table there which is the Levelised Cost of Energy, (probably the fairest measure to use) then (onshore) Wind is the second cheapest.GliderMaven (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Reliability Citation

The citation for Reliability is a letter to the editor from the University of Minnesota's student newspaper. I don't really know the Wikipedia commands, but I would say this is an uncredible source. 75.72.166.16 (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Wind energy should not simply be redirected to this article

Energy is not power. Hence, "wind energy" should not be directed simply to this article "wind power". Wind energy is worthy of an article for itself. Power is rate at which work is done. Energy and rate are different species. 68.126.250.207 (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

But this isn't a first year physics exam. To use any energy out of wind, there is power expended. What would J. Random Wikpedia user be expecting from articles on "wind power" and "wind energy", exactly? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Wtshymanski; yes, the two terms don't technically mean exactly the same thing, but it's confusing to have separate articles on Wind (which already talks about "wind energy" per se, Wind power and Wind energy. Also, 68.126.250.207, note that if you revert the redirect here again within a 24-hour period, you will be in violation of WP:3RR. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Energy isn't precisely the same as power, but they're extremely highly related (by accumulation/integration/summation). In Wikipedia we have try wherever possible to have articles that cover highly related things in one place, rather than individual overly narrow topics.GliderMaven (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Capacity factor

@Plazak The 35-44% quoted in your edit seems a bit high, considering the following: http://www.pfr.co.uk/pfr/3/Renewable-Energy/15/Wind-Power/119/Capacity-Factor/ 25-30% & 'approx. 25%' http://www.umass.edu/windenergy/publications/published/communityWindFactSheets/RERL_Fact_Sheet_2a_Capacity_Factor.pdf 20-40% http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=14611 approx. 22-41% monthly average Gravuritas (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Capacity factor depends on location, and should not be generalized. Economy is a possible discriminator, as low-performing sites are less likely to achieve funding to erect wind turbines. Best possible general descriptor would be a curve combining many different sites, showing annual energy as a function of Capacity factor. I have not come across such a curve. TGCP (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no particular attachment to the one referenced source, but the article should certainly have a discussion of capacity factors. Gravuritas raises a valid point that other sources have lower estimates; the best thing to do would be to add other sources and other estimates to the article. I note that the USEIA source (Capacity factors) puts the average wind capacity factor in the US for 2013 as 32.3%. Regards, Plazak (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Nuclear energy lobbying

This article makes the assertion: In the U.S., the wind power industry has recently increased its lobbying efforts considerably, spending about $5 million in 2009 after years of relative obscurity in Washington.[151]

and then goes on to make a dig at the nuclear industry:

By comparison, the U.S. nuclear industry alone spent over $650 million on its lobbying efforts and campaign contributions during a single ten-year period ending in 2008

The "facts" asserted in the reference in question [154] are of dubious validity. At the linked ref http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/nuclear-energy-lobbying-push/story/nuclear-energy-working-hard-win-support/:

The year-by-year totals represent lobbying dollars reported to the Senate Office of Public Records by members of the Nuclear Engineering Institute and utilities that currently own or operate a nuclear power plant.

But these members and utilities operate other types of power plant as well, nuclear only averages 20% of their portfolio. It does not follow that it was lobbying for nuclear.

We can look at some other references to find out who the biggest donors actually were, e.g. http://www.energyboom.com/policy/clean-energy-lobby-dwarfed-billion-dollar-fossil-fuel-expenditures-washington and http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?year=2009&id=E08 . Southern Company, Florida Power & Light, Duke Energy, PG&E head the list. While they do own and operate nuclear plants, far more of their energy comes from coal and gas. We could more safely assume that the lobbying was fossil-fuel related. Florida P&L also have large amounts of solar! And the others have lots of wind as well. Perhaps the lobbying $ also went on renewables promotion? See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Power_%26_Light#Taxes_Paid .

When the reference is of such poor quality as http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/nuclear-energy-lobbying-push/story/nuclear-energy-working-hard-win-support/ it would make good sense to altogether remove it, and the remarks allegedly supported by it. I propose to do this. Any objections?

SDalley (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The nuclear industry is well known for its extensive public relations activities and lobbying efforts. As of 2014, the U.S. nuclear industry has began a new lobbying effort, hiring three former senators — Evan Bayh, a Democrat; Judd Gregg, a Republican; and Spencer Abraham, a Republican — as well as William M. Daley, a former staffer to President Obama. The initiative is called Nuclear Matters, and it has begun a newspaper advertising campaign. -- Johnfos (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Anti-wind proponents

This article appears to be completely bias toward wind proponents.

There should be a large section where Anti-wind proponents can provide valuable information such as:

Environmental conditions: -Noise complaints are not anecdotal, windmills have been proven to cause disturbances via LFE (Low Frequency Emission) which can carry great distances -Bird strikes are not anecdotal, windmills have been proven to kill extraordinarily high levels of migratory birds because wind projects are often located along migratory bird paths(stronger winds). -Windmills themselves are an environmental factor when they are no longer viable or structurally sound.

Economic conditions: -Various other sources of energy remain cheaper and thus more feasible than wind energy. -Wind energy is subsidized by local taxpayers through higher electricity prices. -Manufacturers rely heavily on energy prices and consider this a major factor when analyzing operations. -Locations where windmills are common tend to have lower property values.

Reliability: -Wind is not reliable, there is no guarantee wind will be available when maximum power requirements are in demand.

Bottom line: Cheaper and more feasible options for producing energy are readily available and can meet the capacity of any growing economy. Wind energy reflects a minute portion of power produced, yet its cost far outweighs its value. Wind energy has been proven to cause major disruption to manufacturing economies where energy prices can mean the difference between a profit and a loss. For the individual taxpayer it means less savings for your future. As long as hydro-electricity, gas-powered-electricity and nuclear power remain cheaper in price, wind energy will never be a feasible option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.1.186 (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Update needed

I appreciate that various updates and improvements have been done to the article in recent times, but there is still a lot of old-fashioned thinking and neglect of recent innovations:

• there is a lot of emphasis on small-scale wind power, right from the very first paragraph, yet the trend is for larger wind turbines and larger wind farms
• there is a lot of emphasis on capacity factor and intermittency, but little on the resilience and energy security that wind power can bring to an electrical grid (see Brittle Power)
• we focus a lot on the USA and UK, but there is now a lot of wind power activity in many developing countries
• there is a lot of past history, but little on future prospects and the integration of wind power with other renewables and the move toward 100% renewable energy

-- Johnfos (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I propose that an Update Tag be added at the top of the article to flag this issue. Comments welcome. Johnfos (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Johnfos (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit: EU garbage

Recntly amended in the article. "For new constructions, onshore wind is an inexpensive source of electricity, competitive with or in many places cheaper than coal,gas or fossil fuel plants." Read the EU report referred to, which is utter garbage. To take one example, the UK is shown as having no subsidies to solar, (presumably because the subsidy to solar is dealt with as an extremely high feed-in tariff, guaranteed for many years, and not as a simple direct subsidy). So the EU report can't pick that up as a subsidy to solar because- why? it would be too much work for the poor dears? -or because they are propagandists who don't want the true subsidies to be revealed? You decide. Then "Figure S – 7 presents levelised cost ranges per power generation technology. Levelised costs for electricity range from around 20 €2012/MWh for hydropower running a full load to 200 €2012/MWh for offshore wind and biomass plants running at realised loads5. Hard coal and natural gas have similar levelised costs (50 €2012/MWh) if running at full load but in recent years the low price of coal and the increase in renewable electricity production has resulted in lower running hours for gas. Levelised costs at realised loads for gas are hence higher and comparable to onshore wind and nuclear." So because gas-fired power stations have to exist in the background because of wind power, they don't run for much of the time and so their 'levelised cost' is high, and so it makes wind power look cheap. You've got to laugh, or cry. What you can't do is take this garbage seriously. Please read the source reports and understand that this is a con job. Gravuritas (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gravuritas: You've got a point. However you are presenting your opinion here. But this is an encyclopedia which provides information to the readers as it is. That's the point of adding reference. Users can check references for verifiability. They can either accept or ignore it.Wikipedia must not contain any original research (OR) material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.--Chamith (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

sorry, mate, but you are confused. It's the article that shouldnn't contain OR. The talk page helps sort out what we include in the article, and there is no bar on OR here. I've provided some degree of justification for the view that the EU report is rubbish. The Guardian has reproduced this rubbish uncritically, and we at WP can choose to quote this rubbish, or not. I suggest thatwe should not. Your attempt to dismiss the reasons for dismissal, on the basis that it's OR, misunderstands the WP PolLicy

Gravuritas (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gravuritas: That's not what I'm saying, You are saying we should remove that information from analysis because it's rubbish and you explained why you think so. But doing so isn't enough to get to remove something from a Wikipedia article .Of course we can present our opinion on what's in Wikipedia articles. But you can't just remove something just because you have a good point. Readers can decide whether it's rubbish or not. I agree with your point here. The analysis seems fake but still the that's what the analysis says.--Chamith (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary- if I have a good point and that is to exclude something as rubbish, then it should be excluded. What's your problem with that? Summarising your position: you've inserted something in the article you now accept is rubbish; you are no longer claiming that my 'good point' is out-of-order as OR; but you still want the rubbish to stay in the article. The difficulty is that no-one in a referenced cite has described the rubbish as rubbish, to we can't balance the article by pointing this out (which would be OR). You want the readers of the article to trawl through a reference quoted in the reference, (which second-level reference consists of several documents & scores of pages), in order for these readers to find their own route to realizing that the sentence in the WP article is rubbish. If you seriously think that yours is a tenable position, then I suggest you think again.

Gravuritas (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I told you Gravuritas, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where it provides data as it is.I will do some changes to the article so that users who approve EU analysis can take it in, or users think EU analysis are rubbish can ignore it. Opinions are not welcome in Wikipedia articles.--Chamith (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Which word of "(This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)" (from WP:OR) are you having difficulty with? It's your opinion that the EU analysis is worth including, and it's my opinion that it is not worth including. My opinion is bolstered by the case I have made, and your opinion is undermined by your acceptance of the case that I have made.

Gravuritas (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gravuritas: Of course, it doesn't apply to the talk pages, you are free to present your opinions here (on talk page) as long as you don't revert edits to the article by saying that they are rubbish--Chamith (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

P.S- My only opinion here is we have to work according WP:OR. Remember you are the one who started this conversation saying that EU analysis are rubbish. Some think they are rubbish some think they aren't. It depends according to their views and beliefs. But according to WP:CONFLICT you shouldn't drag your beliefs or interests to Wikipedia.--Chamith (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion is a misunderstanding of WP:OR. I am not airing my opinion on this talk page because I want to air my opinion: I'm expressing it in order to cleanse the article of the rubbish that you have inserted. You have not attempted to defend the statements themselves: on the contrary, you have agreed with my criticisms of them. No, one's attitude to a report that suggests there is no subsidy to solar power in the UK does not 'depend on your views on beliefs'- it's just garbage. You defend the insertion of this stuff, and oppose its deletion, based on an apparent belief that it is WP policy to include referenced stuff in an article even if its demonstrably poor. In the absence of any other intervention from someone who understands that WP policies do not encourage editors to collect rubbish and proudly present it as a WP article, I give up.

Gravuritas (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• The thing is, the report is not an isolated example of pointing out that wind power is as cheap or cheaper than coal (and gas). Wind power's costs are mostly obvious; the wind farm costs something, connecting it to the grid costs something, the intermittency costs something. With coal, a lot of the costs are externalities, there's large amounts of downwind pollution that measurably and significantly incurs really quite large costs on the population. People actually get asthma, they get ill, and die, because of the coal power production, and in very large numbers. In the UK for example about one in ten or so die of air pollution. The running hours of coal plants are restricted for that reason, and so the grid fills up with wind power wherever possible. That of course pushes up the cost of coal power, since they're running less, but that's really just pushing the price of coal nearer to the true cost and discouraging its use wherever possible (like on windy days). Other sources of energy that could be used to fill in includes nuclear, but that's expensive for other reasons.

And note that expensive fossil plants that run for short periods is not a new thing, that's called a 'peaker plant'. And note that about 1/3 of the wind power is baseload power that's available 95% of the time. The common idea that wind 'cannot be relied upon' is a gross oversimplification; no power supply can be relied on, you always have redundant supplies.GliderMaven (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Gravuritas - If the study is as flawed as you state, there should be published criticisms refuting the claims; these could be included as a counterpoint to the EU paper. Wikipedia isn't based upon what you and I know, nor is it based on what is "true," it's based on what can be cited (for better or worse). Also, please keep things civil; the patronization and aggressive POV pushing aren't going to change policy or this page.--E8 (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I saw this listed over at the dispute resolution noticeboard and I wanted to point out, from a neutral point of view, that I think that this dispute gets the horse before the cart. The issue you need to be discussing is whether or not the Guardian article is a reliable source and if I'm right that this is the edit in dispute, then it is not a reliable source for the proposition that it's being used for, namely that wind is cheaper than coal or gas. It is a reliable source for the proposition that the EU has issued a report saying that it's cheaper, but not for the proposition that it is cheaper. If the Guardian article is to be used in this WP article, that distinction must be made in the text. Can the report itself be used as a reliable source for the proposition that it's cheaper? I don't think so. It's not been published in a peer-reviewed source, but by the EU and the EU on the face of the report (see the pdf of the report) says that it's not vouching for its accuracy: "The information and views set out in this study are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein." (Emphasis added.) While the EU may (or may not) in general have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, when it expressly disclaims the accuracy of its publication that publication has not been reliably published. Therefore, only the Guardian report may be used as a reliable source and it can only be used as a source for the proposition that the EU has issued the report saying that it's cheaper, which must be expressly stated in the WP article text. Whether the fact that the EU has issued such a report is important enough to be included in the article is a question of weight about which I express (and have) no opinion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Whether this particular report is reliable or not, this is NOT a new result. Go over to the Cost_of_electricity_by_source#US_Department_of_Energy_estimates and sort the costs by Total Levelized System Cost and it shows the same thing. This finding is robust across multiple studies. The 'trick' is that when you make reasonable allowance for external costs, such as health impacts of burning coal, and CO2 pollution, the cost of the fossil electricity generation goes up above the cost of onshore wind energy. These are not fake costs, they are real costs that are being imposed on other people by the power producers.GliderMaven (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is the report. It mostly contains colour shades, not hard numbers, and as such is difficult to quote as a reference on Wikipedia - it needs others to interpret it. It appears well researched (data supplied by KPMG etc), although a few things are strange; missing solar subsidy for UK & Denmark (page iv) and price range of €100-200/MWh (p52) when yearly average has been €30-50 . The authors (Gardiner) state that external costs cannot be simply added to base cost to get total cost, as Wilkes seem to have done. TGCP (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of my edits

I made five rather substantial edits to the article yesterday but they were reverted en masse by GliderMaven so I would like to discuss this and try to get some consensus: First of all something strange happened with my first edit when I rearranged the lead, and a chunk of text got lost. I don't know what happened there but what I saved was not what I saw in the preview. I apologise for not checking it properly and I've redone the edit as it should have been in the first place. I've combined the first single sentence paragraph and tried to make the text flow more logically

Secondly I think the article has become a cluttered mess with a massive image in the lead that doesn't really illustrate what we are talking about. Wind power is not wind turbines - they are just one way of producing it - and the rather indistinct image of pink turbines in the mist is not representative of how they normally look. Then there is another image of a wind farm in Estonia that falls between two sections and seems to have been tacked on for no good reason. As wind power is invisible I don't think there should be any image in the lead, but if there is one it needs to be smaller and illustrative rather than just pretty. Also, WP:THUMBSIZE says that images should not have forced image sizes without good reason.

Thirdly, the gallery in the middle of the article looks a mess and doesn't really help with the understanding of offshore wind farms. It's just become a place for the world and his wife to upload their favourite images of offshore wind farms. How many images do we need to illustrate what an offshore facility looks like? There is even one image of a turbine blade on a truck in Texas which has nothing to do with that section. To quote from WP:GALLERY "Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons".

If this article is ever to progress it needs some pruning of images so we just have the ones that illustrate the text. I don't think at the moment it even meets the good article status it was awarded some time ago. Richerman (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Multiple policies and guidelines and the general convention is that there should be an image in the lead, and in most cases this image is set to a larger size. WP:THUMBSIZE just says that wherever possible you should not use px sizing, upright=1.25 or upright=1.3 is preferred, whereas you deleted the image entirely. I don't buy the 'wind power' is invisible argument. On the whole this doesn't seem to be a good idea.

I tried to 'undo' some of your edits individually, particularly the blanking, but the wiki software was unable to do this automatically (which it can usually do if they're widely spaced) as they were too clustered, and so I would have had to manually undo them. Given the nature of the changes and the subject lines I thought it best to revert them all.GliderMaven (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sound propagation from wind turbines

I noticed that there might be a bit of confusion about how sound propagates from wind turbines. Here is a bit of background:

The SPL (sound pressure level) from an ideal point source radiator falls at the rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance (inverse square law).

The SPL from an infinitely long line source such as a highway falls off at a rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance.

The SPL from an infinitely large plane sound source is constant with distance from the source.

The SPL from a wind turbine is a lot like a point source if it is a dot on the horizon, and a lot like a plane source when it is close and occupies a large part of your field of view.

If you are close and looking at the edge of the turbine, it looks a lot like a line source.

Complicating this is the fact that the ground acts as a mirror, so you are (usually) hearing the direct and reflected sound together.

Further complicating this is the fact that wind gradients and temperature gradients often bend sound towards the ground or away from the ground, making the measured result wildly different from the calculated result.

Here are some references that may help:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/75/1/012083/pdf/1742-6596_75_1_012083.pdf

http://apps2.eere.energy.gov/wind/windexchange/pdfs/workshops/mwwg_turbine_noise.pdf

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:458870/FULLTEXT01.pdf

http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Sound_Propagation.html

https://www.trueaudio.com/st_lines.htm

http://www.windenergy.org/swat/Stepping%20Through%20the%20Standard.pdf

http://www.cbuilding.org/sites/cbi.drupalconnect.com/files/2d_Bastasch_WindTurbineSound_0.pdf

If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask. I have been involved with acoustics and electronics (mostly large stadium PA systems and recording studio design) for may years. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Onshore and offshore pricing

Due to the high capital cost and low running cost, the actual price of wind power depends on circumstances. Onshore prices seem to have gone down, while offshore prices seem to have gone up. In 2002, Horns Rev cost 45.3 øre/kWh while Anholt Offshore Wind Farm cost 100 øre/kWh in 2013 (more than inflation?), and prices in UK and Germany are even higher, but less clear. The profit from price minus cost is used as motivator for plant construction by some countries. These cost increases are important aspects not well covered in general wiki articles, and probably should be compared with similar increases for other new power plants. I have gathered a few sources on this complicated subject, which will take time to go through. TGCP (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Horns Rev 3 came in at 77 øre/kWh - maybe the upward trend has bucked, and prices in other new parks may stagnate or even fall. The price spread is still a notable point in my opinion. TGCP (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Kinetic energy

Regarding recent revert, the sources confirm it's the kinetic energy. To quote some:

• US Department of Energy: "Wind turbines convert the kinetic energy in the wind into mechanical power"
• "The (wind) tubine uses kinetic energy derived from wind. (...) The produced airfoils transform the kinetic wind energy into mechanical energy"
• "Some of the wind's kinetic energy is given up or transferred, causing the object to move" Brandmeister^talk 15:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You are right and the reason given for reverting you is wrong. Power is the rate of doing work - i.e. energy per unit time, so wind energy and wind power in the sense of this article can be used interchangeably except where it's clear that it is a rate of using energy, in which case the term has to be power- i.e. the capacity of a windfarm is a rate in Watts so references to the capacity must be power, not energy. The article could just as easily and accurately be entitled Wind energy. It's also been asserted that wind energy can be stored: no it can't- it has to be converted into some other form of energy to do so. As a short form of 'energy from wind' then wind energy can be used, but the contrast stated by Glidermaven between wind power and wind energy was incorrect: I think I'd probably back the US Dept of Energy as knowing how and when the use of the term 'energy' is valid. However, there is a debate to be had as to whether your edit actually improved the clarity of the paragraph.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Gravuritas, but your edit is factually incorrect as the kinetic energy of the air flow through the wind turbine disk is the bit that's not collected, rather than the bit that is. The power comes from partially impeding and deflecting the flow with a wind turbine.

As a fictitious example if there was no wind turbine, the wind speed might have been 20 m/s. With the wind turbine there, it might be 15 m/s; and the wind turbine is able to obtain IRC ~60% of the difference in kinetic energy of the airflow.GliderMaven (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Kinetic energy, quoting Textbook of Engineering Physics (Part I), says it's "the energy that [the object] possesses due to its motion". If understand it correctly, this is what the wind power is in relation to wind-harvesting devices. My concern is that the lead section of the wind power article currently doesn't explain what the wind power actually is, leaving room for improvement. Brandmeister^talk 21:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Glider Maven. Thank you for the first four words, but the rest of that sentence is wrong. It's perfectly legitimate to talk about the kinetic energy of the wind before or after a wind turbine or at any other time. It has kinetic energy beforehand, and as the turbine slows it down the wind has less kinetic energy afterwards. I'd suggest that you stop telling Brandmeister he is wrong, because he isn't, and focus on which explanation is clearer, because both contenders are true.

Gravuritas (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

They're surprisingly subtle devices, you don't seem to understand the nuances, judging by your comments. The wind has less kinetic energy before going through the turbine as well. Indeed, air that never went through the rotor disk is slower than it would have been if the turbine wasn't there.GliderMaven (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Ain't no nuances in the basic energy equation. Kinetic energy in = kinetic energy out + elec energy out + heat. Subtle as a brick. You can add a little nuanced localised pressure change if you want, or admire the subtleties of the blade geometry, but they don't change the basic energy concepts. Quantum mechanics and theology: those I don't understand. Windmills I do.

Gravuritas (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Careful here. There is no conservation of kinetic energy in physics. And the pressure across the wind turbine disk is non zero. And what do you mean by 'kinetic energy in'??? There's viscosity effects and all kinds of things going on here. If you think there's no nuances, then you certainly don't understand it.GliderMaven (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

One last time. The equation I wrote is conservation of energy for e.g a wind turbine. "Kinetic energy in" is upwind sufficiently far to not be affected by localised pressure changes, as I thought was obvious. "Kinetic energy out" is downwind suff f t n b a b l p c. Viscosity effects generate heat. No atomic energy, no chemical energy, no local energy storage.... So the simple equation applies. If you still don't get it, ask a competent engineer. Gravuritas (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It's still not formally correct. The airflow originally comes from pressure differences, and you've neglected that. In the real world there are pressure differences due to high and low pressure areas. The equation really is only an approximation. In any case, the text that was inserted does not convey any of that to the reader, so it seems to be a bad idea to make the change, at least we're agreed on that.GliderMaven (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

New lead image

I decided that, rightly or wrongly, that the lead images were too small, too ugly and badly shot. I've replaced them with an image that actually shows a wind turbine farm with a wind turbine in the foreground.

Does anyone else have any suggestions for what else might be used here?GliderMaven (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Wind power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071229033413/http://www.awea.org:80/projects/projects.aspx?s=Texas to http://www.awea.org/projects/Projects.aspx?s=Texas
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120820175120/http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/2011_wind_technologies_market_report.pdf to http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/2011_wind_technologies_market_report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051230204247/http://www.uwig.org:80/IEA_Report_on_variability.pdf to http://www.uwig.org/IEA_Report_on_variability.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090328073721/http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org:80/en/environment/chapter-6-social-acceptance-of-wind-energy-and-wind-farms/ to http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/environment/chapter-6-social-acceptance-of-wind-energy-and-wind-farms/

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

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Wind power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121202231507/http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/business/energy-environment/as-wind-energy-use-grows-utilities-seek-to-stabilize-power-grid.html?pagewanted=all to http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/business/energy-environment/as-wind-energy-use-grows-utilities-seek-to-stabilize-power-grid.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080905112322/http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/renewable/publications/pubs/wind-discussionpaper.pdf to http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/renewable/publications/pubs/wind-discussionpaper.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130111224833/http://www.thegreenage.co.uk:80/greencommercial/hydroelectric-power/dinorwig-hydroelectric-plant to http://www.thegreenage.co.uk/greencommercial/hydroelectric-power/dinorwig-hydroelectric-plant
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120325151238/http://hmccc.s3.amazonaws.com/Renewables%20Review/MML%20final%20report%20for%20CCC%209%20may%202011.pdf to http://hmccc.s3.amazonaws.com/Renewables%20Review/MML%20final%20report%20for%20CCC%209%20may%202011.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Wind power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100918151714/http://awea.org/projects/Projects.aspx?s=Indiana to http://www.awea.org/projects/Projects.aspx?s=Indiana
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120325212512/http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org:80/en/part-2-grid-integration/chapter-6-wind-power-contribution-to-system-adequacy/capacity-credit-of-wind-power to http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/part-2-grid-integration/chapter-6-wind-power-contribution-to-system-adequacy/capacity-credit-of-wind-power/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140810202450/http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/marketdata/windpower.asp to http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/marketdata/windpower.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130502230537/http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/20_percent_wind_2.pdf to http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/20_percent_wind_2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130515152357/http://www.btm.dk/documents/pressrelease.pdf to http://www.btm.dk/documents/pressrelease.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140701230913/http://www.risoe.dk/rispubl/reports/ris-r-1608_186-195.pdf to http://www.risoe.dk/rispubl/reports/ris-r-1608_186-195.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Wind power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110606102707/http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/wind/2005/00000029/00000003/art00002 to http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/wind/2005/00000029/00000003/art00002
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120513142641/http://www.ree.es/ingles/sistema_electrico/pdf/infosis/Avance_REE_2011_ingles.pdf to http://www.ree.es/ingles/sistema_electrico/pdf/infosis/Avance_REE_2011_ingles.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120314142558/http://www.eon-uk.com/generation/publicattitudes.aspx to http://www.eon-uk.com/generation/publicattitudes.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110630030725/http://btm.dk:80/news/offshore+wind+power+2010/?s=9&p=&n=39 to http://btm.dk/news/offshore+wind+power+2010/?s=9&p=&n=39

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Top wind power contries 2015 table

This table is wrong. It appears that someone changed entries for U.S and China to 2015 values but left the rest of the entries the way they were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.23.211 (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I fixed this. --Ita140188 (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Threshold of 50GW

@Elektrik Fanne:. You've just reverted an edit of mine. You misread the (unclear) source- if you read a couple of sentences further down in the WP Wind power article, you'll find that the installed base was 432.9GW in 2015, not 50GW as you have interpreted it. My edit also clarified that this was an increase in wind power capacity, not wind power. Suggest you revert your revert. Gravuritas (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gravuritas: Sorry. No revert yet. I have reread the first source and I find I have to agree that there may be a certain ambiguity about it (which makes it unreliable of course). The sentences you refer to are unsourced. There is a reference at the end of the paragraph but it is just an index to various stories and it would appear this one has dropped off the bottom. I would normally delete unsourced information, but seeing as it's you, I will give you a couple of days to find a suitable source. --Elektrik Fanne 14:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not a fan of the wind power industries way of making a big hullabaloo of increases in wind power capacity: I think that is only of interest to the sellers of turbines. I would prefer to see a time series of actual generated wind power, which I think would be of much wider interest and hugely more significance. I therefore have no interest in putting in any significant work to defend the status quo ante: if you want to delete it be my guest, though I would suggest you propose it on this talk page first as you may meet some opposition, though not from me. My edit was simply to clarify someone else's statement, and it's a pity that you can't recognise it as such. Your edit however, is plainly wrong and has to go immediately: a statement that the installed base of wind power is 50GW cannot stand, so I'll revert it as you won't.

Gravuritas (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If, it's unsourced, it can be deleted on sight in accordance with the established policy. As I have said before, it is up to anyone opposing it or the restoring editor to provide the supporting references. People often claim that it should be marked a {citation needed}, but I long ago discovered that if claims are so marked, they are generally still marked as such in 5 year's time. Deletion forces the referencing for the reasons given. --Elektrik Fanne 16:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The content was (mis-)placed around here. Merely a case of whether content is before or after a ref. Fixed. TGCP (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)