Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy development/Archive1

message: Hya, I'd be interested in helping with this project.  Though I've very little Wikiing experience, I have read a lot on peak oil and other energy sources and have been looking for some way I could help raise awareness and increase discussion on the subject. --Jwanders 19:38, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Where do I sign up?

message: It is proposed that the Alternatives to oil section of Hubbert Peak be largely moved to Future energy development.
*Support Tom Haws 05:41, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
*Opposed zen master    T  06:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we need an Alternatives to oil or Alternatives fuels article?  The alternatives to oil section in hubbert peak is meant to be a synopsis that summarizes all alternatives, it's not meant to be the definitive area  where all info about all alternatives is put, so even if content is "moved" most of the current synopsis in hubbert peak should remain as it's highly relevant there.  Though I agree there is room for verbosity clean up. zen master    T  04:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternatives to oil material in Hubbert Peak

message: It is proposed that Future energy development be merged into Energy development
*Weak Support.  I'm okay either way. Tom Haws 05:41, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
*Weak Support  As long as hubbert peak content is not pilfered I don't care as long as whatever happens makes logical sense and is consistent. zen master    T  06:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Future energy development article

message: Should the article Hubbert peak be renamed/moved to Peak oil?
*Oppose Sorry.  Peak oil is simply not descriptive.  Is a redirect unsuitable? Tom Haws 18:55, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
*Oppose Peak oil already redirects to Hubbert peak. zen master    T  19:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: I welcome all new participants. I note that this page has become cluttered with past polls. Is anyone against moving them to the discussion page? Ultramarine 18:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving past polls to discussion page

message: I worked out the following energy equivalents I thought might be useful.  It might be good to include such in our project somewhere. Grid electricity ($0.08/kw-hr) is now clearly cheaper than gasoline ($2.5/gallon) for transportation. A fifth the cost (50 cents a gallon), I figure.  Can you all please check my numbers?  Tom Haws 16:12, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
* 1 kw-hr=3412 BTU, 1 barrel crude oil=5,800,000 BTU, 1 gallon gasoline=124,000 BTU.
* Internal combustion engine efficiency = 20% to 30%. Electric motor efficiency=80% to 90%.
* Automobiles use the equivalent 1 gallon of gasoline (internal combustion)= 6 kw-hr (electric motor).
I though that the efficiency of storage for a battery was about 50%.  Don't have a source at the moment, but whatever the number, it is probably significantly less than 100%.  pstudier 19:19, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
:: Battery efficiency is somewhat greater than 50%, though not quite 100%. It's my understanding that PbA and Li are around 90% while NiMH are less, apparent by the heat they produce during discharge and charge.  --D0li0 06:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Energy equivalents

message: I just saw an artical in the April 2006 "Consumer Reports" claiming that the fuel savings from hybrid vehicles don't pay for the extra costs, even at US$3-4/gallon!  This suprized me, and I was sadened to see it, but I don't doubt it's true.  When you add up the total costs for the electrical equipment (batteries, motor, etc.), the extra loan interest, depreciation, insurance, and maintenance costs, the total costs are more than the savings in fuel and tax credits.  The honda civic hybrid and the Prius were the most economical, but even with these vehicles the lifetime cost was several thousands dollars more than a similar non-hybrid vehicle.  I expect that before hybrids can break-even in costs, gas prices will have to go up over US$5/gallon, the price/performance of hybrid technology will have to improve, and the tax laws will have to be more favorable; however, all these things are likely to happen.
Mikiemike 20:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are Hybrid Vehicles Economical?

message: I sense in recent polls a nascent desire for an improved project organization in the area of the reign of oil.  There is a widely held desire to present an article or series on oil's place in energy development, and a feeling that an article on Hubbert's Peak is just not grand enough for the subject in question.  Rather than another evil poll, perhaps we should discuss this a bit and try to come to some consensus on a bold move that will give us a commendable treatment of the "Rise and Fall of Oil Energy".  There are several clues that this project has a much bigger potential.  I suggest we start throwing out ideas for growing the project.  Tom Haws 16:12, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
* Hubbert Peak is bursting at the seams.  Need a discussion of The Oil Regime.
* Energy development has turned (courtesy of an anon) into a discussion of various means of supplying the Electrical Grid.
* The History of energy development that had been progressing at Energy development is gone.
* We need a genre of articles for the rise and fall of various energy exploitation schemes.  I don't know what they would be called, but I feel getting the name right will help avoid entropy.  Ideas I can think of include Energy from oil/Energy from photovoltaics, Oil energy/Photovoltaic energy, Oil energy development/Photovoltaic energy development, Oil energy history and outlook/Photovoltaic energy history and outlook.
* We need a genre of articles about various energy distribution and use schemes/technologies: Energy development and the electric grid/Energy development and the internal combustion engine, Electric grid as an energy delivery scheme/Internal combustion engine as an energy delivery scheme.
:Looking over the progress list you have outlined, above, I note the following:
:*The Hubbert Peak article has far outstripped the Wikipedia guidelines regarding length for a well-written article on a given subject.  I would suggest that we drastically pare down the section on "Implications of a world peak" (placing some of it in a separate article) and then create another new article for "Alternatives to oil," again with a tight summary in the Hubbert Peak article.     
:*As to the Energy development article, I can see what you mean about the changes.  It is frustrating to have someone summarily turf something you have worked on.  On the positive side:  There are improvements in readability—always a good thing IMO.  We can add back material that seems necessary.
:*The remainder of your proposals sound good, though it is too much for me to contemplate right now.  Let's establish a framework for these articles so that we can all work on them as time permits.  Meanwhile, I can work on the Hubbert Peak and Energy Development articles along the lines I have described above.  Sunray 15:15, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
::Do you think the energy development article should be used as a "template" for the larger scope of this project, or just another article? --Ctrl buildtalk  21:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Charting a direction for the project

message: I feel like I'm talking in an empty room.  Hello?  Hello?  Is anybody there?  I found an article I think is quite exciting.  The Dotcom King & the Rooftop Solar Revolution: Idealab impresario Bill Gross couldn't wait for the dawn of the sun age. So he built a high-energy, low-cost solar concentrator that will fit on your roof. And overthrow the powers that be. Tom Haws 22:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
:Hi Tom.  Thank you for hanging in there.  It will pay off big in karma :-)  Thanks for the article and thanks for the initiative.  I will give you some comments on the latter within the next couple of days.  Sunray 05:50, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
::I'm back. Sorry about the multi-month disappearance. I am ready to help get this project really off the ground. There is so much structure that is unused, and so much energy information that is not even documented. --Ctrl buildtalk  22:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am here as well. I was mostly active in the hydrogen economy page, lately I have digressed somewhat to space technology pages like reusable launch system, but I would be willing to help reorganize pages and fill in blanks time permitting. The energy pages really need some better organization and perhaps templates. I also found the lack of tables mentioning the gravimetric and volumetric energy density of diverse fuel alternatives and other hard data somewhat dissapointing. Quasarstrider 23:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some news

message: This inactive wikiproject seems related to yours.  Do you want to adopt it or cannabilise it for parts? Hiding  talk 18:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
::Yeah, its an earlier version of the page before it was renamed. I probably either should do redirects to this project or look into getting it deleted. Any ideas? --Ctrl buildtalk  19:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've listed a few for deletion and they've gone through okay, so you could list this and if you state the reason it would get deleted.  However, a redirect would prevent it getting created again, and is probably the better idea. Hiding  talk 19:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel like I am playing wikipedia telephone tag. I agree. When I feel up to it, it shall be done this week. --Ctrl buildtalk  23:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy]] 

message: The Human Development Index (HDI) is a standard UN measure/rank of how developed a country is or is not.  It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment.  However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.
Thus, the following question is put to a vote:
Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia country infobox/template:
:(1)  Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;
:(2)  Rank of country’s HDI;
:(3)  Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?
YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here
Thanks!
E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''[[Template_talk:Infobox_Country#VOTE.21.21_-_HDI_in_country_infobox.2Ftemplate.3F|VOTE!!]]''' - HDI in [[Wikipedia:List of infoboxes#Countries|country infobox]]/template? 

message: I'm thinking of launching a sustainable technologies project and am hoping to get feedback and gauge interest.  I've drafted a project page in my userspace; if you're interested, please check it out and comment on its talk page.  Thanks!  —Jwanders 19:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential sustainable technologies project 

message: :Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF