Talk:Alternative energy

message: Alternate energy sources must be made to help save money,save the climate, and reduce air pollution. Nuclear energy  especially new types of plants that could be substantial in providing cleaner energy. Wind energy as well for its abundance and the fact that it's free . And some sort of electric hybrid or bio fuel for transportation personal and professional. All will of these methods of energy are a step in the right directionThis article redirected to Energy development which doesn't suffice. In the past it redirected to Renewable energy and Future energy development. Neither of these are equivalent to Alternative energy. Renewable energy is close but not necessarily the same. So I'm starting the page. --Duk 15:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds precisely like renewable energy (or sustainable energy) to me. What exactly is the article supposed to be about, if not the same things? Richard001 21:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By definition, alternative energy doesn't harm the environment. Some forms of renewable energy, like large hydropower installations, don't meet that definition. This is an important distinction, and "alternative energy" is a widely used term - both need to be covered. --Duk 00:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every method that humans use to harness energy from nature impacts the environment. See for example Environmental effects of wind power. The question is not whether, but how much. Large hydropower installations, for example, typically impact the environment far less than burning the equivalent amount of coal over the project lifetime, but this does not mean damming rivers has no impact - the impact is enormous, just less than the even more enormous impact of burning large amounts of coal. Most renewable energy sources are diffuse, and require modifying the natural environment on large scales to generate amounts of power comparable to what humans get from fossil fuels. This is not an argument against, say, putting thousands of wind turbines in the Great Plains, but rather an acknowledgement that large-scale alternative energy development is going to have a lot of impact, and will therefore generate lots of debate. In general, the best position to take in a debate is on the side of the facts, so rather than suggest there is some form of large-scale power generation which doesn't harm the environment in any way, it's probably more effective to document the various kinds of harm caused by all the available options, so people can decide which harm they will accept. Since people aren't going to voluntarily stop using electricity and fuel, they can only choose which sort of harm to absorb (or, possibly, to dump on other people in the form of external costs). By the way, I think the real distinction between Alternative energy and Renewable energy is not that the former is somehow magically free from any environmental impact, but rather that alternative energy includes some non-renewable alternatives to the forms of energy that currently dominate. Some nonrenewable alternatives include coal liquefaction and Coal bed methane extraction. --Teratornis (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Duk and Richard001, Duk, you said "Alternate energy sources must be made to help save money, save the climate, and reduce air pollution." This is what we want, but it is not what alternat(iv)e energy (sources) essentially means. What you say is expressed by words like "green energy", "renewables", "environmental-friendly energy" etc. which is not the same. Alternative energy is about every energy (or technology utilizing an energy source) which is alternative to the currently used ones, without prejudice and consideration of their impact to the environment. In the 1960s, nuclear (fission) power stations belonged to these alternatives, today there is fusion energy (another nuclear energy) which is an alternative energy (whether being cheap or environmentally friendly or not). In this sense, solar energy is already more and more becoming an "ordinary" energy source and no more an "alternative", but it takes some time, until a newer energy is considered mainstream. When I was at University and attending the alternative energy lectures in the 1980s, nuclear (fission) power was still considered "alternative" as today still is solar energy or wind. So, when you say "By definition, alternative energy doesn't harm the environment", than this is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "alternative" both technically and etymologically. Laymen are using the word "alternative" in this way, but energy experts do not and the latter conform to the essential meaning of the word "alternative", which is latin and simply means: the other possibility. This concept distinguishes two types of energy sources: The already established ones and all the others. As this article should be scientifically correct, it should reflect the scientific meaning of the word, although it could (or should) also mention, that in everyday's usage it is often meant as being synonymous to "green", i.e. limited to only some of the alternative energy sources or technologies. --Bel Air (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled discussion 

message: I just wanted to suggest an external link for this page. The following is one of the most comprehensive alternative energy news websites:
*Alternative Energy News - Articles, forums, news, photos and videos about alternative and renewable energy technologies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Ramon (talk • contribs) 00:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you would have more luck posting it to Renewable energy because this article really isn't much here to cover content. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 03:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for external links 

message: While a WP search of wave energy takes you to wave power, my attempt to add wave energy to the article caused a red word with no page. I changed it to wave power.  I would guess that no one is really trying to make a distinction between power over time and energy, which are equivalent.  Perhaps a more sophisticated redirect is needed for wave power so that the entry is symmetric with the other energy entries.  Nukeh (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wave energy now redirects to wave power it seems.  Still, 'energy' usually implies the physical concept, as in wave energy as it fits into physics and the physical sciences.  Power typically refers to using it as an energy source. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 21:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a fair amount of this type of naming inconsistency among the articles pertaining to energy. See for example Geothermal power and :Category:Geothermal energy. Some people seem to use the rule that "power" refers to generating electricity, and "energy" refers to using energy in other forms, such as process heat, building heating/cooling, mechanical work, and fuel. This might reflect the general lack of grid energy storage, which means when you generate electricity, you usually have to consume it immediately, so the natural way to think about electricity is as a form of power. If Energy storage technology improves, that distinction may blur. Perhaps a better place to discuss the naming of energy/power-related articles is on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy. --Teratornis (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wave Power / Energy 

message: If alternative energy means non conventional, then since hydro, coal and nuclear are well established conventional sources contributing significant power worldwide, neither belong on the list.  If any or all should be on the list, our definition must be modified.  
Wiktionary has the following definitions.  Both conflict with ours:
:A. Energy derived from any source other than fossil fuels 
:B. Energy derived from any renewable source; i.e other than fossil fuels or nuclear fission 
If it is B, then this article should merge with renewables.  If it is A, then Nukes are on the list.  Perhaps the wiktionary definition is wrong and we could take the time consuming path of debating a new definition eg:
#non fossil fuel (coal, hydro, nukes make list)
#low pollution (clean coal might make this list, but not current nukes due to unsolved safe waste storage problem)
#new low  technology (hydro off list, clean coal and Pebble bed reactors on list)
#non  emitting (biomass off list, as well as all of 3)
Really, we can have lists topics for all of these, but what we shouldn't do is make up a definition to fit the technologies we favor.  We rather should cover the subject of whatever the generally accepted meaning of the term is.  As a person unconnected with the energy field, when I utter the term, I mean definition 2, but I can see someone working close to the field would view the meaning as "unconventional".  In any case, as the def currently stands, hydro coal and nukes must remain off the list. -J JMesserly (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hydro Nukes and Coal violate definition of "conventional"

message: There are a string of statements here that portray biofuels in a negative light.  The reality is that biofuels have both positive and negative views associated with them, and both should be presented for balance.  For example, there are differing views on the food vs fuel debate and there is actually considerable evidence that biofuels are not to blame for high food prices (see, for eg., , , ).
 
If we are to focus on alcohol as alternative to fossil fuels I would have thought it would be instructive to explore the Brazilian situation, since much has happened there. Johnfos (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this really require extensive discussion?  If you like, soften it with, "though it is a controversial assertion, some experts believe...", then link the "controversial assertion" to a section of the ethanol fuel article for a full examination of the issue.  There isn't anything nefarious going on here.  It is a fact that cellulosic is being aggressively investigated an alternative fuel source to ethanol based on other biomass.  If we are to explain why some feel an alternative is required, we have to explain what the undesirable aspect(s) of other ethanols are.  That is the only purpose of bringing up the negatives.  No blanket indictment of biofuels was intended.  Obviously, this has nothing to do with Algol, switchgrass, willow, or poplar to the extent that they do not compete for the same land used to grow food crops.  -J JMesserly (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text: It is as if you did not read my response at all.  You have silenced the critics of the technology you appear to favor.  Whether I agree with them or not, this article must enumerate the criticisms of each of the technologies so that the reader can understand why alternatives to them are being sought.  Did the search for alternative fuels stretching from the middle ages through the 19th century, the 1970s and recent developments suddenly stop with renewables?  Are all renewables equivalent to alternative energy?  Not all people agree- why?  Because not all people accept that all biofuels are acceptable alternatives.  Why are people looking for alternatives to biofuels from food harvests?  The reader does not know.  You have entirely expunged any rationale.  You have also expunged any statement that anyone believes that some biofuels are not acceptable.  My cite succinctly demonstrated the POV of the critics are credible.  You have expunged the fact that the US can never become anywhere near self sufficient on biofuels using its entire massive capacity to grow grain.  Instead of telling why anyone would look for an alternative to ethanol, the reader is left without any impression why anyone ever would look for an alternative.  The reader is unaware any debate exists, and is instead treated to a lengthy promotion of a particular technology.   This is balance? -J JMesserly (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been voluminous edits to other pages, but no response.  No rationale has been given for elimination of the cited assertion that not all biofuels are universally regarded as alternative fuels.  This information has been eliminated twice.  I am having some difficultly understanding why the passage should not be restored.  -J JMesserly (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Alcohol as alternative to fossil fuels: Unbalanced tag

message: I don't feel good about the reference added to a commercial cite, especially in the first line of the lead. Isn't there an independent, reliable source (scientific paper, government report) that provides similar information? --Art Carlson (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, that is a poor source.  The things you mentioned, scientific papers, gov. reports, etc would get precedence over the existing reference. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 15:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  On site renewable energy options 

message: write over hear ok.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.184.102 (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestion if any 

message: The last sentence of this section needs revision.  I am unsure what the author wanted to say, but what is currently there cannot be true - DNA can not be manipulated to be crude oil.  Perhaps he was referring to the EXCREMENT being like crude oil DUE TO DNA manipulation?--Sahmejil (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biogas digestion error 

message: I am troubled by this recent edit. As a physicist, I have some doubts about whether it makes any sense, but I don't know for sure. That's what sources are for. The references given are essentially two blogs - no peer-reviewed publications, no reviews by government funding organizations, no money from major corporations, no coverage in mainline news or by professional organizations. This section could get very long if we include every idea that is blogged somewhere. Come to think of it, this whole section ("Relatively new concepts for alternative energy") is inviting such trouble. I propose removing mention of any concepts that do not have coverage in tertiary sources or solid secondary sources. (Gee, that sounds like a Wikipedia policy, doesn't it?) --Art Carlson (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The title of one of the blogs ends with "...touted as a viable power source". We don't need to add to the "touting". Vsmith (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Chopped along with bug shit bit. Vsmith (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I added it after I read it in a scientific magazine years ago. I did a quick search on Google for some sources to show I was not making it up. MSNBC used the same LiveScience source I did in an article. I will search right now and see if I can find something more scholarly for you. If not, I'll leave it be. And in no way was this any kind of "promotion". I have no affiliation with this guy. (Lightningflame1642 (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Here is a website with a bunch of articles, if you'd like to read about it: http://vortexengine.ca/Media-mainstream.shtml. The topic isn't important enough for me to make a big stink about not having it in this article. I just added it because I found the topic interesting. (Lightningflame1642 (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Man-Made Tornadoes 

message: Beleive an Alternative Global Energy Indpendence Day was crtead  in 2005 Jul 10th To promote "CLEAN GREEN" Alternative energy.Decisivevictory (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beleieve theres a Energy Indpendence "Day" Jul 10th 

message: isn't nuclear power considered an alternative form of energy giving that its harm to the environment is minimal and it doesn't include burning anything?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.206.162.190 (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting argument. It's not normally called alternative energy, but it qualifies under the usual definition.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  nuclear power 

message: alternative energy is one of the most advanced form of energy in which  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.172.176.2 (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  wow 

message: Source           	Definition
Oxford Dictionary	energy fuelled in ways  adriansearch=alternative+energy&textsearchtype=exact. Accessed May 2, 2008.</ref>
This part oft this list doesn't make sense and the link is a dead-link.
Knows anyone the correct meaning of the selection above an the correct target of the link?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.43.136 (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitionions 

message: This seems to be the place where people are discussing things for this page.  Let me know if I am doing something wrong here.
Yesterday I made some changes to the paragraph just before the table of contents.  Today Arthur Rubin is telling me that my changes were wrong and didn't make sense, but I think my changes were better.
That paragraph is over generalizing on a couple of points and appears to be logically incorrect on another.
First, the paragraph says that "in general" the definition of "alternative energy" is ... and then gives a very specific meaning that only applies to modern society.  It seems the general definition would be the one that encompasses all of the cases described in the article and that this is only one SPECIFIC definition, not the general one.  My changes tried to make that clearer.
Second, the last sentence says that "official use of the term" excludes nuclear energy but if you read the citation it is only a legislative definition from Michigan, USA.  I don't think it is valid to say that because Michigan, USA excludes nuclear energy that all official uses of the term also excludes nuclear energy.  This is over generalizing from one specific case to a general case.
Last, the current text says that the less comprehensive definition INCLUDES nuclear energy.  This makes no logical sense.  It would mean that the MORE comprehensive definition includes fewer things ... which makes no sense.  I think that the problem happened when someone changed "excludes" to "includes" here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_energy&diff=360075806&oldid=360074933
Please help me understand why my changes have been undone.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherilyn69 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The paragraph before the table of contents 

message: the company at the end of the paragraph said it was going to release a prototype in autumn 2009. has anything happened on this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenne264 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  floating wind turbines 

message: All systems have a life-cycle cost. Research (concept), design and development, production, sustaining (maintenance) and finally disposal or end-of-life. Each phase isn't free. This has to be part of the article, or else it's just selling "free energy" without the fine print.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic Analysis of any energy solution 

message: Air Hydro Power (or Air Hydro Electric Station) 
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2012/06/air-hes
 
is using cloud water with head 2-3 km. It is a new alternative for Solar and Wind with the best economics (up to 500 W per 1 m2 of PP mesh for $0.25). It could give worldwide up to 810 TW renewable energy + water supply. Andrew Kazantsev (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: airhes.com is a primary source. If you put information directly from there it will be deleted. To add this information you would need a reliable (secondary) source WP:RELY that mentions them in an article about alternative energy. Bhny (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Hydro Power 

message: This article begins by defining 'alternative energy' sources as alternatives to fossil fuels. Two other sections in this article appear to describe coal as an alternative energy source, even though this contradicts the definition that was given in the lead section. There are sections in this article about coal as an alternative to wood and coal gasification as an alternative to petroleum. Jarble (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out! Yeah, hand-wavy-ness is ubiquitous among these new concepts. Biomass, biofuel, biogas, biomaterial. The worst part is, in different disciplines the definitions are different (e.g. biomaterials). -- SzMithrandir ❈ Ered Luin ❈ 07:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article appears to contradict itself 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Alternative energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/statistics/#E
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528051443/http://www.eners.ch/plateforme/medias/macedo_2004.pdf to http://www.eners.ch/plateforme/medias/macedo_2004.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Alternative energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130703233732/http://cri.is/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=8&lang=en to http://cri.is/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=8&lang=en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303231146/http://www.internationalrivers.org/files/attached-files/world_commission_on_dams_final_report.pdf to https://www.internationalrivers.org/files/attached-files/world_commission_on_dams_final_report.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120125101249/http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/40742.pdf to http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/40742.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080618163304/http://www.valcent.net/t/news_detailf62c.html?id=36 to http://www.valcent.net/t/news_detailf62c.html?id=36
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070821112329/http://www.greenfuelonline.com/technology.htm to http://www.greenfuelonline.com/technology.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Think theres a Global Energy Indeppendence day held on the birth anniversary of Nikola tesla? Didnt see a mention of ANY alternative energy days to promote encourage Alternative Energy in article ! Thanks!Eddson storms (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belive there a Global Energy Independence Day Nikola Tesla B'day Jul.10th 

message: As a group we want to discuss the opposition that alternative energy faces and who is opposed it? Why is alternative energy opposed and examples of how movements towards alternative energy are opposed. 
This our current progress on the sandbox we are using to plan out our additions and edits. 
Jose R-- Renewable alternative energy has faced pushback from multiple groups, this includes conservatives and liberals. Around twelve states have weakened alternative energy movements by passing proposals. "In Kansas, for example, lawmakers recently defeated a bill that would have phased out the state’s renewable energy mandates, but its backers have vowed to propose it again.". Jrobles2795 (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam, this paragraph has a lot of very interesting facts but make sure you have sources listed here. I am not sure where you are getting you information from. Also, you may want to try rewording "Solar panels have become an icon for the 'green power' movement, however the process of manufacturing these mostly quartz based solar panels is actually very detrimental to the environment" as it has some awkward wording such as using "actually very". Defining some of the substances and other technical term you use could be beneficial in making this more understandable. Over all, the structure and organization could use a little work but you definitely have a lot of good information. Laurennoble (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  POL 150C Group Project 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 18 external links on Alternative energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100705090450/http://www.mms.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/Definitions.htm to http://www.mms.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/Definitions.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090727133935/http://www.torridge.gov.uk/onlineplan/written/cpt28.htm to http://www.torridge.gov.uk/onlineplan/written/cpt28.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528051442/http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/Brazil_SR_e3.pdf to http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/Brazil_SR_e3.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131604321000/http://www.eesi.org/021207_Cellulosic_Ethanol to http://www.eesi.org/021207_Cellulosic_Ethanol
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221223727/http://www.inbicon.com/About_inbicon/News/Data/Pages/All_systems_go_at_world%E2%80%99s_largest_cellulosic_ethanol_plant.aspx to http://www.inbicon.com/About_inbicon/News/Data/Pages/All_systems_go_at_world%E2%80%99s_largest_cellulosic_ethanol_plant.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/business/worldbusiness/31biofuel.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090404100351/http://www.earth-policy.org/Transcripts/SenateEPW07.htm to http://www.earth-policy.org/Transcripts/SenateEPW07.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160204205612/http://carbonrecycling.is/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=8&lang=en to http://www.carbonrecycling.is/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=8&lang=en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130216231811/http://www.zsw-bw.de/themen/brennstoffe-wasserstoff/power-to-gas.html to http://www.zsw-bw.de/themen/brennstoffe-wasserstoff/power-to-gas.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927082610/http://www.zsw-bw.de/infoportal/aktuelles/aktuelles-detail/hochrangige-politiker-lobten-zsw-innovationen.html to http://www.zsw-bw.de/infoportal/aktuelles/aktuelles-detail/hochrangige-politiker-lobten-zsw-innovationen.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140622090917/http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/excel/Energy-Economics/statistical-review-2014/BP-Statistical_Review_of_world_energy_2014_workbook.xlsx to http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/excel/Energy-Economics/statistical-review-2014/BP-Statistical_Review_of_world_energy_2014_workbook.xlsx
*Added  tag to http://electronicdesign.com/article/power/is-solar-energy-really-ready-to-rumble-19153.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/1224/064.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150721013559/http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/REN12-GSR2015_Onlinebook_low1.pdf to http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/REN12-GSR2015_Onlinebook_low1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160104165807/http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/ to http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004113944/http://ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/USDA_DOE_biofuels_letter_61208.pdf to http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/USDA_DOE_biofuels_letter_61208.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120510101628/http://energy.sandia.gov/index.php?page_id=405 to http://energy.sandia.gov/index.php?page_id=405
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120525141142/http://www.jbei.org/index.shtml to http://www.jbei.org/index.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121105043109/http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/5912/Alternative-energy-sources to http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/5912/Alternative-energy-sources
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alternative energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090525061817/http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Biomass/biogas.shtml to http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Biomass/biogas.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Alternative energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=alternative%20energy
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160410104951/http://www.rtcc.org/2007/html/glossary.html to http://www.rtcc.org/2007/html/glossary.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217185308/http://www.cfa-international.org/Trees%20and%20Woods%20by%20R%20White.doc to http://www.cfa-international.org/Trees%20and%20Woods%20by%20R%20White.doc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304030520/http://www.districtenergy.org/assets/pdfs/2011Annual_Conf/Proceedings/A24WONG-v03.pdf to http://www.districtenergy.org/assets/pdfs/2011Annual_Conf/Proceedings/A24WONG-v03.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141203135336/http://www.torium.se/res/Documents/9_1kang.pdf to http://www.torium.se/res/Documents/9_1kang.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141106123856/http://www.calvert.com/fundProfile.html?fund=971 to http://www.calvert.com/fundprofile.html?fund=971
*Added  tag to http://www.euroheat.org/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=%2fFiles%2fFiler%2fPresentations%2f20120618-22_EUSEW%2f120619_EUSEW_3+-+Holm+brussel+juni+2012.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: DCPROJECT, your new lead is just too detailed, and because it fails to provide us with the broad strokes right away, it makes the article lack cohesiveness. It is not concise enough and is inferior to the current lead, sorry. El_C 19:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: New lead

message: The History section mostly talks about adoption of fossil fuels. This isn't what people have in mind when they talk about alternative energy. I am planning to move the part that isn't fossil-fuel-focused to a different section, and copy the rest to the Talk page. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section