Wikipedia:Peer review/Sustainable energy/archive1

Sustainable energy

I've listed this article for peer review because User:Clayoquot and me would like to nominate this for FA status, and we would like feedback about what to improve first.

Thanks, FemkeMilene (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a reasonable amount about air pollution but I feel it is so important it should have a section title. I can see that it is very tricky to avoid too much duplication with other articles: the boundaries need to be carefully considered, for example sustainable energy is essential for sustainable transport but other things are also needed - obviously don't need stuff about tyre particles etc here but section should maybe say that sustainable energy (although perhaps most important part) by itself does not make transport sustainable. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

In the Transport section I can add something about how switching energy sources and vehicle engines would still leave the major problem of non-tailpipe emissions. Chidgk1, can you elaborate on what else we should say about air pollution? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry my suggestions are very vague - I don't really have a clear idea about this article - maybe wait for others to support, reject or elaborate my comments Chidgk1 (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for these suggestions. I've added a bit about non-tailpipe emissions to the Transport section and a bit more about air pollution to the Environmental issues section. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

1. The lead is OK in terms of length, but needs reducing to four paragraphs per MOS:LEADLENGTH.

   Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

2. I spotted a couple of hyphens instead of en dashes in page ranges.

   Done. I though the script fixed that..

3. There seems to be inconsistency as to whether publisher locations are given for sources.

   Done? I've found one more location, went through all the sources that have an isbn

4. I would expect to see page ranges for eg cites 176, 181.

   Done

5. Why is more than a sentence or two needed on "universal access to energy" for this topic? Similarly "energy poverty".

   Done

6. A FAC should avoid statements of the obvious, eg "There are many approaches to conserving energy". You don't say? More seriously, it adds wordage without imparting information.

   Done, but not looked for similar statements. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

7. Some of the language could do with copy editing for clarity. Eg I have little idea what "As a clean energy source, wind has been an important driver of development over millennia" means. What is "development" in this context? And as it is left hanging it may leave a reader scratching their heads. (Yes, Hammurabi, Dutch windmills etc, but it is asking a lot of a reader to extrapolate that.)

   Done - I changed the language to make the examples more concrete. It took me a while to connect the dots between wind and land reclamation too. I also found a few other awkward sentences and copyedited them. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Just some quick first thoughts. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Gog! Re Why is more than a sentence or two needed on "universal access to energy" for this topic? Similarly "energy poverty"., could you elaborate on why shortening these sections would improve the article? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Because there seems no obvious reason why they should be included in an article on sustainable energy. I mean lots of things are loosely connected to it, as these are, and are rightly not included. I don't see why these should be. They are worthy topics, but that is insufficient reason for inclusion. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

You aren't the first person to say something along these lines, so something about the way the article addresses energy poverty issues probably does need to change. One thing we've struggled with is that "sustainable energy" is often used casually with meanings that don't match formal definitions of the term. Formal definitions place strong emphasis on environmental, social, and economic aspects and on the needs of both the present and the future. In casual language, at least among the people and the mass media I know, "sustainability" is much more focused on the environmental aspect and the future. Globally-scoped high-quality reliable sources on sustainable energy, such as UN, WHO, and IPCC documents, tend to put a lot more emphasis on access to energy than the English-language popular press does. Is there a way to resolve this tension? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. I've removed these two sections entirely, merging the essential points into other sections and removing the non-essential points. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Not my speciality area, but the usual approach would be to see what high quality RSs say and use this to explicitly define the topic, perhaps in a short opening section. And boil this down to one or two sentences with which to start the lead. That help? If HQ RSs differ in their definitions, that needs flagging up too. Note that I wasn't saying they shouldn't be there, just asking an open question and then playing Devil's advocate when you asked for clarification. But this will get poked at during FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up :) W.r.t. your suggestions for a section on definitions and for one or two sentences to start the lead, doesn't the article already do this? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

One of our difficulties is that HQRS often don't explicitly define sustainable energy. They typically define sustainable development (environmental, social, economic) and then say it applies to energy. What we could do is rewrite 'energy poverty' as 'social and economic issues', to reflect this better? I like having a separate first paragraph in the lede that defines it like this, even if that means having a fifth paragraph. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yep. I guess it does. Good point. OK, next: I am struggling to see where this is confirmed in pp. 11-13 of Pathways to Sustainable Energy. (And why is p. 11 included at all?) Maybe you could quote for me the actual words in the text you are relying on to support "include three main dimensions of sustainability in their working definitions of sustainable energy: ... The economic and social dimensions include having reliable energy be affordable for all people"?

"include three main dimensions". You then give two bullet points. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

"One of our difficulties is that HQRS often don't explicitly define sustainable energy." You need to be led by the sources, and if there is not a clear consensus of HQ RSs on what the definition is, you have a problem. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Corrected the page numbers (3-4) of Pathways to Sustainable Energy. I'm up for having three dimensions in the bullet points (I think we had that before, why did we move to two?), as these are consistently described by our HQRS (they describe rather than define the topic). Just found a new source about 'sustainable energy development' that may help us: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110770. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Femke, if you have access to that new source, could you please email it to me? If you don't have access to it I'll ask at the WIkipedia Library. IIRC we moved to two bullet points because the social and economic aspects are related (not having enough energy is both a social problem and an economic problem). But I'll try rewriting it as three bullets for clarity. I'll also split the section so that we have a heading called simply "Definitions". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

My attempt at rewriting it as three bullets failed after I took a closer look at the sources. Hammond talks for a few paragraphs about how various sources have conceptualized sustainable energy, and while it seems that the sources roughly agree on what issues are included in the definition, they categorize the issues differently. Some of the sources that Hammond references, for example, use a checklist with presumably more than three checkboxes. So I'm planning to actually generalize the discussion on dimensions and take out bullets altogether. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Reference formatting

Can anyone answer some questions on formatting references:

• Should all references include the publisher location, or is it required only for certain formats such as books and reports?
• Should the publisher/journal name always be wikilinked if an article exists on it?

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think the publishers locations is not really a think for sources that aren't books/reports. For the wikilinking, the key is consistency: we can go for three options: link all, link only the first mention, and link none. The middle option would require a lot of upkeep, given that we're having to update and change sourcing frequently. FemkeMilene (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

  I think this is done. I wikilinked publisher names in the Sources section. Some journal and website names are wikilinked and some are not, but I think this is OK as linking everything would result in some redlinks. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis

• I find the lead to this article quite strange. It reads as I would expect a short talk or lecture to read, laying out a mission and then addressing various issues and arguments faced for that mission. The many sentences on possibilities, things that could be done or things that aren't being done, which feel a detraction from focusing on things that are being done and describing the current situation. That said, it's comprehensive and seems to encompass the scope of the article.

  I've removed "Meeting the world's need for energy in a sustainable way is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity in the 21st century.", which I think will go a long way towards addressing the strangeness. I feel the factual problem described afterwards already addressed this in a more 'encyclopedic' way. We are very much at the start of the sustainable energy transition, so I'm not too concerned about talking about policy options rather than the current system, but open for more suggestions. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  While I would probably agree with that timeframe description personally, it might be a bit CRYSTAL. If there are enough sources to use it without it being CRYSTAL, then that is the sort of general point that could go in the lead to provide context to the various coverage of possibilities. The term "Energy transition" is not included until its use as a main in "Energy system transformation" (that header also being a synonym), and not explicitly in the text (unless a brief cooking example is counted) until the Finance section. CMD (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  I made some changes to the lead and body to use a more descriptive writing style which should lessen the WP:CRYSTAL impression, and I'll keep working on this. I've also added a bunch more explanation about the concept of energy system transformation . Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• "Definitions of sustainable energy also cover" is entirely redundant to the preceding paragraph. It also may flow better to match the longer explanations to the short list (at the moment the short list goes environmental -> economic -> social, the long environmental -> social -> economic.

  The preceding paragraph now details how the themes of sustainable energy have changed over time, so I kept the paragraphs separate. Expanded the third paragraph, and changed wording to indicate it's an expansion of the dimensions (rather than repeating the dimensions). Switched order. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• "Meeting the world's need for energy in a sustainable way is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity in the 21st century, both to meet the needs of the present and in terms of effects on future generations." I am not sure this framing is encyclopaedic in wikivoice, both in terms of declaring a mission and in certain vocabulary choices (ie. needs). Some element of that framing is inherent in the content of the term sustainable, but I suspect it could be tuned down. I would suggest a more descriptive framing that provides a bit more of an explanation behind the statement. This might be something like "Meeting existing and future energy demand in a sustainable way is a critical challenge for the global ambition to reduce the impact of climate change while maintaining economic growth." (Based off the World Bank source only, which didn't seem to have a social component although I personally would suggest social components come through strongly in the SDGs.)

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• The "Environmental issues" subsection might be better generalised as a "Impacts of non-renewable energy" or similar, as it covers some social and economic issues as well as environmental ones.

  Removed the paragraph about social/economic issues, as it was more about the solution than the problem. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Somewhere in the Environmental issues or the Energy poverty section should contain a very brief overview of why energy growth is considered vital. Although it has a very obvious answer, it feels like something that is missing from the article at the moment that would further contextualise the sustainability framing. It's actually covered quite poetically by the Ban Ki-Moon quote box, but those general points should be somewhere in the text too. The current Energy Poverty subsection goes straight into detail (perhaps a bit too much?) without first providing the overall framing.

  I feel that this is covered under the SDG section, which may have become more prominent with Clayoquots condensing of that overall section. Global growth isn't considered vital, but rather growth in areas with significant lack of access. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• In Energy Conservation, the mention of "these goals" is relying on assumed knowledge that the "Paris Agreement" has multiple goals. "Another approach is to reduce usage of materials" similar assumes the knowledge of material production -> energy, which I don't think is necessarily commonly understood. The "X... another X... another X..." prose probably also isn't the most refined.

  Explained twice; will be on the look-out for more. FemkeMilene (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• The last sentence of the second paragraph of Energy Conservation really isn't parsing for me. I also didn't at a quick run through see in either source the explanation of consumer preferences for larger cars, which sounds potentially regional rather than global.

  Result of a stray edit which inserted an incomplete sentence. Removed that half-sentence. FemkeMilene (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Will add more later. As a general point reflecting some of my specific notes above (and Gog's point 7), I feel this is probably quite a high level article, and so should ideally be written in a way that could be easily understood by those with little to no background in energy or climate change. Currently I would say this article is on the too technical side of WP:OBVIOUS. CMD (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Just read through the above, including Gog's point 5 which seems to run along similar thoughts to mine on the length of those subsections. I think the idea of their suggestion of something that works within a few sentences would meet my suggestion for a brief overview. CMD (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Very useful comments, thanks! I wonder if it would help to merge the "Universal access to energy" section into other sections. E.g. the section on "Energy system transformation" could talk about transforming cooking systems. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

That might be good with a shift to focus on the sustainability, eg. "New cooking systems such as X and Y would allow for an expansion of energy access to be more sustainable." CMD (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the 2 paras on cooking to the Buildings and cooking section. Does this work? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I think so, as I am tending towards agreeing with Gog that the section is of undue prominence. CMD (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• The Renewable energy sources subsection sets up a comparison between renewable and sustainable energy, but doesn't actually define renewable energy.

  Defined + provided more explanation. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Specific figures and date frames would be preferable than just noting hydropower is the "largest" and "last few years" shows growth.

  We're providing specific figures in the hydropower section, and I prefer to only have to update in one location. Removed 'last few years', and put in present tense. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Do any sources raise potential issues with the material cost of the production of renewable energy? Are cheap renewable solar grids cheaper than traditional fossil fuel energy?

  What do you mean by material costs (CAPEX or the amount of lithium/cobalt needed)? Overall price of grid depends on too many aspects (region, price trajectories of storage, assumptions about variability), not really easy to say. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

  Potentially capex, but more the initial carbon expenditure. Wind power has "Little energy is needed for wind turbine construction compared to the energy produced by the wind power plant itself" for example, so if there is a more general assessment for renewable sources, or even a statement that this initial carbon cost is completely negligible in the overall life-cycle, that would be useful context. Or even a general statement about overall life-cycle emissions, which I have just discovered we have a page on! CMD (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• On the image caption, "capacity additions" is quite jargony, especially as it is not used in the text.

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• "Solar energy is Earth's primary source of energy". This is I feel a confusing vocabulary switch, as it is using the holistic concept of energy when the article to this point has treated energy within the framework of human use, and even closely linked it to electricity. I do not expect a casual reader to be able to understand the juxtaposition between "Earth's primary source of energy" and "around 3% of global electricity".

  Replaced the first solar energy with 'The Sun". FemkeMilene (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

  Now that's a bright idea. CMD (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• "The panels are mounted on top of buildings or used in solar parks" feels at the same time both an odd level of detail and a significant oversimplification. (This may be a case where we can go in the other direction on assumed knowledge, and assume the reader will know electricity is connected to the electrical grid.)

  Removed the 'electrical grid' bit. The intention was to make clear that solar is used by households/(businesses), as well as on utility scale. Tweaked the rest of the sentence. Where do you feel like it's an oversimplification

  It's an oversimplification because solar panels are quite flexible. Why is it limited here to buildings and power stations? CMD (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• "Most components of solar panels can be easily recycled, but it is not always done in the absence of regulation." This suggest that the converse, that regulation results in good recycling, is true. If it is, that's great of course.
• "Module recycling could reduce the energy payback time to around one month." This is a jargon heavy sentence. I myself am not sure exactly what "module recycling" means. "Energy payback time" could be reworded too.

  rewrote. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Probably a good idea to explicitly note Concentrated solar power is not a form of Photovoltaic cell production.

  Tried, but couln't get any high-quality prose out of my keyboard. Explained the mechanism instead, so that it's clear from that. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• "Globally in 2018, solar energy fulfilled 1.5% of final energy demand for heating and cooling." Is this specifically non-electricity energy, or is it all solar energy including electricity?

  I've removed this sentence as I don't see why this statistic is worth mentioning. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• The wind introduction is better than the solar introduction as it provides tangible and easily understandable examples. That said, land reclamation forced me to think a bit, I'm not sure it's the most understandable example. If these sections are going to start with an historical overview, a bridging sentence regarding the transition to electricity production would be useful. Currently it goes sail->mills->polders->2019 wind turbines, and the last step is quite a jump.

  I've smoothed things out and made the examples more concrete. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "offshore wind power will become cheaper than onshore wind by the mid-2030s". This is missing a why, so far all that has been noted is that it is more expensive.

  I removed the sentence, as this issue is unlikely to be meaningful to the general reader. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• The current text implies off-shore wind farms do not cause bird strikes, which I understand is not the case, although the number may be smaller than for on-shore wind farms.

  Added 'with wind turbines'. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• A note that while both solar and wind cover costs and effectiveness vis-a-vis fossil fuel, they do not mention the costs compared to each other.

  Depends on loads of factors, including the share of electricity of the other intermittent sources. Prefer not to delve into it in this article. Global LCOE in 2020 was about the same. FemkeMilene (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Hydropower: "It produced 60% of the electricity used in Canada and nearly 80% in Brazil." Time frames would be useful here, as the subject is unclear between 2019 and the entire 20th century.

  From the article history, it seems that these numbers refer to 2015. It seems like the number for Brazil was wrong, with p26 indicating it's over 60. Removed it for now, but okay if we put more accurate and recent numbers there. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• Is the biological decomposition caused by flooding remotely equivalent to what would be created by producing power through fossil fuels? Context vs other impacts would help with the paragraph on issues, similar perhaps to the note prior that wind farm strikes are not too different from other infrastructure.

  Added context. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  According to the IPCC, the lifecycle emissions of the very worst hydro projects are worse than coal. Actually more than twice as bad as coal. I struggled with this and decided not to mention it because it would be undue weight, but the answer to your question is yes. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• Geothermal: "Heat can be obtained by drilling into the ground and then carried by a heat-transfer fluid such as water, brine or steam" is a sentence that could be reworded and perhaps split up into a longer but more understandable explanation.

  Not pretty prose, but should be clear now. Replaced with a more modern source, as I'm not sure brine is still used. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• "high permeability" feels like another quite specific technical term that would be better served by a short explanation.

  Glossed the term. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Geothermal has a similar issue to solar in different connotations to the term "energy".

  Tweaked

• "emits toxic emissions"->"emits toxins"?

  did 'release toxic emissions', as toxins are something produced in cells. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• "If the production of biomass is well-managed, carbon emissions can be significantly offset by the absorption of carbon dioxide by the plants during their lifespans." Instead of switching from biomass to plants within a single sentence, I would suggest sticking to biomass here and then adding a separate sentence noting the predominance of plants in this industry.

  I rewrote and expanded this sentence. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "More sustainable sources of biomass include crops grown on soil unsuitable for food production, algae and waste." Needs rewording to confirm crops are not grown on algae and waste.

  Reversed order. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• "single marine energy devices" and "multi-array devices" are jargon that should be reworded/explained.

  replaced multi-array with larger, which should also explain 'single marine energy devices'. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• A general introductory sentence is needed to explain what fossil fuel switching is.

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Does the natural gas emissions calculation compared to coal include the cost of leaks?

  Yes, but I think it's a bit too technical to mention. Could put it in a footnote if you think that helps. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

  I raise because the sentence about leaks comes directly after the sentence on carbon inefficiency, and it is unclear to me if those sentences are intended to be linked or are separate points. "produces around half the emissions of coal when used to generate electricity" implies it is the gas being used to generate electricity that is compared (ie. just the gas being burnt), not the entire natural gas system. CMD (talk) 05:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• "CCS can be retrofitted to existing power plants, but is more energy intensive." More energy intensive than what?

  Compared to having new-built coal with more complex CCS technologies. Removed the whole sentence, as I believe it's a bit of an unnecessary detail. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest bringing the sentence on "perceived risk of nuclear accidents" and "Public opposition often makes" together within their paragraph, or perhaps some other change if there is an intended flow. The paragraph seems a bit disjointed at the moment.

  Did a bit of shuffling. Hope this is better. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• A sentence in the final Nuclear power paragraph about the difficulty that any change to nuclear power has to go through would provide context to differentiate it from other power sources, as those developments are far less likely to take hold compared to say the earlier mention of new designs for wind turbine blades. This would perhaps link to the "progress has been limited" section in the previous paragraph.

  I think we've tried that already by using the words 'attempting' for fusion, which conveys quite a bit of uncertainty. Other developments, such as small modular reactors, are as likely to develop as those for wind turbines from my reading of the source. Only thorium doesn't have an indication of difficulty, but I'm not sure it's important enough to put more emphasis on it. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1 - Chipmunkdavis

• The Energy system transformation section feels oddly placed. Its introduction reads like background information, and fundamentally it is a core part of understanding sustainable energy, as sustainable energy is a concept created to meet the perceived need of an energy transition. Text such as "As of 2019, 85% of the world's energy needs are met by burning fossil fuels" feels like background to much earlier text such as "The current energy system contributes to many environmental problems". "Generation of electricity and heat contributes 31% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, use of energy in transport contributes 15%, and use of energy in manufacturing and construction contributes 12%. An additional 5% is released through processes associated with fossil fuel production and another 8% through various other forms of fuel combustion" is excellent general background. Other text such as "energy usage technologies such as vehicles must become powered by electricity or hydrogen" is oddly detailed when the concept of Electrification has not yet been introduced.

  Clayoquot has tackled these. GHG emissions removed, sentence about transport is gone. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• The Energy system section as a whole also seems to be juggling disparate concepts. "Electrification" looks at the switch of energy-intensive processes aside from electricity production from fossil fuels to electricity. "Managing variable energy sources" looks at changing grid infrastructure to deal with differing inputs. "Hydrogen" is about an alternative energy source, which relates in theme to Electrification but not really to electrical grids. "Energy usage technologies" is a mixture of topics, covering alternative energy sources like the Hydrogen section (eg. waste heat) as well as other issues such as modal shift, sustainable consumption and production, and general energy efficiency. I get a vague feeling that this section may be trying to convey the Avoid-Shift-Improve philosophy or a similar structure of energy changes to describe how energy might shift (there's the ASIF variation which introduces an F for alternative Fuel), but if so that needs to be more clearly conveyed in general terms. Another alternative might be breaking it up, placing the general background information on an Energy shift near the start, include the energy efficiency measures in the Energy conservation section, discuss the Electrical grid in the Renewable energy sources section, and have Energy usage technologies as its own section (which mind you still leaves Hydrogen as a somewhat awkward child of Energy sources and Energy usage technologies). These were quick thoughts, so please don't feel a need to run with them precisely, but I do think the purpose of the section needs to be clear.

  This is the section that has seen the most changes over the development of the article. I agree that Energy usage technologies (which used to be called "Sectors", could be "Energy users" too) could be its own section, even if we also delve into the transformation of these energy users. Electrification/use of hydrogen are sometimes seen as two competing paradigms of future energy carriers (like electricity, hydrogen is not itself a source of energy), so I think they should stay together. I was unfamiliar with the ASI philosophy, but I guess that section would focus on Shift-Improve. I'm not quite sure, maybe User:Clayoquot has a more clear vision. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

  The concept of energy system transformation is fundamentally mind-blowing, but critical. In a way it would be easier to explain the parts separately, but if we can manage to get the reader to understand how deeply the parts inter-relate, we'll have accomplished more. I think we should probably keep this section together and work on more explicitly explaining the connections. Thanks for the link to WP:OBVIOUS; it was an "aha" for me to read that.

  P.S. Femke, I'll be on a camping trip without Internet from roughly Sunday to Thursday this week. I'll try to get something done with this section before I go. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

  I was thinking that it may be nice to have 'Energy sources" and "Energy usage" as two top-level headings. With the short-description we argued that sustainable energy is about both sources and uses, and it might be nice if we reflect that in the section headings.

  Electrification is such a key concept, that I'd rather not split it up into its efficiency part and its 'grid' aspects, which would leave our discussion of material use a bit in the air.. I've given two subsections of 'energy transformation' different titles, to emphasise the transitional part and therefore trying to make it more coherent. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  The hydrogen section needs some shuffling / rewriting to explain immediately why hydrogen is needed / very useful for the transition. I think it should express the following from the Carbon Brief Q&A (I like how they phrased it, and wish copyright wasn't a thing).

  The hydrogen economy could be all-encompassing. Or it could fill a series of niches, depending on hydrogen availability, cost and performance relative to alternatives, for each potential application. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  I agree that energy system transformation is a huge part of decarbonisation and so on, to the point it underlies a shift to sustainable energy, and that is why I felt the information there belonged higher up in the article. The whole section on different energy sources for example, is about the production aspect of systems transformation. Keeping issues within system transformation in its own section is I suspect difficult, in part, due to the entire article being in some way related to system transformation. Sustainable energy as a whole is the outcome or goal of proposed energy system transformations.

  FemkeMilene, on electrification, what do you mean by the efficiency and grid aspects? To me those are different topics to electrification. CMD (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  A couple of quick semi-formed comments before I have to disappear for a few days: The to-do list for the low-carbon transition, and its costs and co-benefits, would all be different if there were a different set of good options for energy sources. There are a limited number of ways we can get energy and they are all quirky, and the reader has to understand the quirks in order to understand everything else. So it makes sense to talk about energy sources first before talking about the rest of the transition. A second comment is that most people already understand that the way energy is produced needs to change but are oblivious to the other aspects of energy system transformation, so I've been trying to draw the reader's attention to it by having a section devoted to it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

  That's possible, it would be good to have the article assessed by some of those less familiar as you note to see what they take away from the article. A keen Wikipedian or a roped-in real life volunteer. Something for after your holiday though, I think! CMD (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

  I think these issues have been addressed with the addition of paragraphs giving a conceptual overview of energy system transformation, more explicit discussion of the overarching strategy of "decarbonize electricity + electrify everything", and a bit more on decarbonizing electricity. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• The concept of Universal access to energy feels like an idea that should be earlier, as it underlies the socioeconomic facet of sustainability. It perhaps could be combined with the Sustainable development goals section, as that treads similar ground (Universal access to energy feels like a more engaging header from those too). With regards to the specific content within the section however, I would say again that disparate concepts are combined. Mobile/off-grid renewables feels along the theme of Managing variable energy sources, providing an alternative model to plugging into the main grid. (Another place it might fit would be directly under solar, but this may reduce the socioeconomic context.) The sentence on Reliable electricity fits squarely in electrification. The concept of technology leapfrogging fits within the general background information regarding an Energy transition.

  I think this is tackled as well. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• In Finance, a mention of mechanisms through which more developed countries/the international community fund least developed countries would add greatly to the initial paragraph on investment needed. The GCF for example funds renewable energy. The sentence "with most of this being private-sector investment in renewable energy deployment, public-sector investment in sustainable transport and private-sector investment in energy efficiency" seems like a good candidate to be a bit longer with a bit more context. At the moment it feels easy to come away with the reading being "most of this funding is private-sector and public-sector", which is not the most insightful takeaway. I don't have any general comments myself, however I've just discovered we have a Climate finance article which is probably worth comparing with, and linking to as a Main/Further.

  The funding is extremely scattered and attempts to centralise this in the Green Climate Fund have mostly failed.. Added something like this. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• In Government policies, the discussion of carbon taxes is missing the base idea of taxes as a market mechanism, as well as the concept of valuing externalities not captured by the market (which I would say is itself a key part of the concept of sustainability). The use of potential revenue from such taxes is a tangential side-effect. I also feel the current text does not clearly differentiate between the concepts of carbon prices and carbon taxes, which have distinct implications.

  This may be a bias on my side, as I dislike the externalities framing. I have replaced the word carbon taxes with pricing once to be closer to source (which also mentioned carbon trading). I have moved the revenue to a less prominent position, but I'm also happy to remove it altogether. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

  I've added the base idea, i.e. providing an incentive to reduce emissions. Another good catch of something we had missed. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Coverage of Energy-specific programs and regulations jumps out at me at lacking specific mention more active government interventions, such as providing subsidies for electric cars, or electrifying trains. It alludes to it with "accelerate energy system transformation" (and there is the example of car purchases in an image caption but not the text), but most of the language is the more passive language of regulations and standards. A shift to more active intervention has been a significant development of recent years, as government seek to up the "scale and pace" mentioned in the final paragraph.

  Funny that you see regulations as more passive, as they can be more drastic than financial incentives (like shutting down power plants). I've added a sentence about positive financial incentives, which got way less space in the literature than I had anticipated. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

  That's on my terminology. By regulations, I was referring specifically to items such as building standards, or standards for new constructions, or new urban planning regulations. These are the topic of the current second paragraph. Shutting down a power plant I would say is a much more active intervention. The example that comes to my mind is the difference between requiring new ships be built to certain efficiency standards, vs banning older existing ships that do not meet those standards (not that I expect this to be a prominent example in general sustainable energy literature). CMD (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• There's a fair amount of overlap between Government policies and finance. My suggestion would be to treat the Finance section as covering general and aggregate issues, while the Government policies section deals with the specific issues. eg. Fossil fuel funding to Government policies. I'd also suggest putting Government policies before Finance, as Finance in many ways flows from policy.

  I switched the sections around. I would like to keep fossil fuel subsidies in the finance section, so that number can be compared easily (needed funding, current funding and "anti"-funding. I could delete "Ending these could lead to a 28% reduction in global carbon emissions and a 46% reduction in air pollution deaths", as that is less relevant to finance and more something I'd expect in a government policy section. FemkeMilene (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

  I've put the labour issues in the government section, to make the finance section only deal with finance. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I've kept this more general than a FAC/FAR, haven't done source checks etc., or checked the solution to each of my comments. Still, hopefully my comments are understandable. Reviews are inherently somewhat antagonistic, so worth noting that I think this is a quite broad and nebulous topic, and it's impressive that it's managed to be put together as it has. CMD (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I think the comments are very useful, even though I'm not yet sure how to address many of them. The structure of the article is something we've been struggling with for quite a while, and yours and Gog's comments indicate we're hadn't solved it completely. Figuring out how to answer them required me to do some source checking, so we're also making progress on that front :). FemkeMilene (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks CMD for giving this such an in-depth review! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm

I hope to be able to start on this later tomorrow. 04:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Gonna have to do this one in chunks, but starting now.

• Just tiny point to start out with, but for some reason it bugs the heck out of me that in File:GHG emissions from energy by sector 2020.svg, the industry x-axis label isn't capitalized but the others all area. Not sure if that is fixable or not.

  Thanks for catching that! I fixed the image on Commons - it seems to be taking a while for the new image to come through though. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

  It looks like the image on commons reflects the title update, but not the capitalization update. Not a big deal, though

  • • Finally done! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Energy production and consumption are responsible for 72% of annual human-caused greenhouse gas emissions as of 2014" - there's been some decent progress since '14. Any chance you could get an updated statistic?

  Updated to 2018. Higher percentage due to updated methodology (probably related the weighting of various greenhouse gases), it has decreased 1 percent point since 2014. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• "Coal combustion releases sulphur dioxide and volatile organic compounds which form into ground-level ozone, both of which can cause respiratory disease" - I'm not sure what "both" is referring to. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it seems to be referring to three items: sulphur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, and ground-level ozone

  This was a bit of puzzle for me, but it seems like this diff seems to have introduced text not supported by the source. @Chidgk1: you can always email me to get access to any source when rewriting one of my overly technical monstrosities, but please don't add information if you don't have access to the source. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes sorry thanks for spotting my mistakes there - was probably rushing - I should have added another source and the word "both" was wrong - I will take a more careful look now and maybe leave it as is or maybe add a very few extra words properly sourced. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• "keeping global warming limited to well below 2 °C or to 1.5 °C" - could the Celsius values be converted into Fahrenheit as well, for those readers from regions that don't use Celsius? From stuff I've seen with other articles, this may have to be done manually, as the conversion template treats 2 degrees as the value, not as two individual degrees

  I'm less and less certain we should do this, as my mini survey of US newspapers (from Fox to NYTimes) is that they don't frequently translate these Paris goals to US-specific units. If you compare climate change, you see it does get a bit messy to use US units everywhere. I've done it on the first mention and in the lede. We have {{convert|2|c-change}} to do this. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  I think the first mention works well. It looks like celsius is gaining usage in the US, but the US education system still hasn't quite caught up. Seeing that makes me feel rather stupid, as I'm a 21-year old with a bachelor's degree and have no idea how to convert Fahrenheit to Celsius

Ready for energy sources; will pick this up back tomorrow. It's a heavy week for work travel for me (probably gonna get to close to 600 miles driving by the end of it). Hog Farm _Talk 05:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry this is taking so long - crazy week for work

• The wind turbines image has alt text, but not a caption. Can a caption be added?

  Added. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Worth mentioning that wind turbines are sometimes thought to have negative mental health effects if placed too close to settlements? This is older, but looks WP:MEDRS compliant. Others may have idea on where to find better sources if this is worth including

  Not quite sure whether this should be added. I think adding even more disadvantages would give the section too negative a tone compared to overview sources. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  From what I understand about this issue, I agree with Femke that it should be left out. The source is a "Commentary"[1] which is very low on the MEDRS reliability ladder. This higher-quality source found that the evidence on adverse effects was heterogenous. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, that works. All I really know on the topic is that it comes up in rural politic debate occassionally, so if the solid scientific sources don't treat it as a major thing, it shouldn't be included. Hog Farm _Talk 04:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  That's a good point. Our article on wind power could probably use more exploration of health effects. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• " whose costs have been coming down rapidly" - recommend as as of here
• "The share of renewable energy in industry was 14.5% in 2017" - Any chance a newer number can be found? Renewable/sustainable energy seems to be an area where change is moving faster

  I've looked at the 2021 version of the source, which stated it was 14.8, but didn't specify a year. I looked at the source they cited, but couldn't find the number in there (460 pages, so only cntl F). I think I might find a 2018 number somewhere if I dig very deep, but don't expect the 2019 numbers to be available yet. Industry isn't changing fast yet. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Skim of the sourcing shows no red flags.

I think this article is FAC ready. I found it to be very understandable, and this is coming from someone who has spent all but the last two months of their life in a rural area where there are basically no traces of sustainable energy (which I doubt will be coming soon, because the area still doesn't have high-speed internet). Hog Farm _Talk 21:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your review! Your comments are very encouraging. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)