Talk:Renewable energy in Australia

message: This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of July 23, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: I'm not particularly fond of the lead...it doesn't really work for me.  I can't put it into words...I guess the tone isn't that formal, and it doesn't seem to fully summarise everything.  Sorry if this makes no sense.  I've tried to "improve" it, please try and follow my lead there and make it better.There are quite a lot of subsections, and some (such as Solar photovoltaics, and Public opinion as noted under thorough) are quite small.  Merging or expanding them would help.
:2. Factually accurate?: 
:3. Broad in coverage?: Some more information on public opinion would be nice, as this isn't something that can be dealt with without considering the community views (and for the record, I'm Australian :D)
:4. Neutral point of view?: 
:5. Article stability? 
:6. Images?: 
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far. 
— Giggy UCP 06:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Giggy, and thanks for reviewing. I have expanded the Solar photovoltaic section and the Public opinion section, and expanded the lead.  How does the article look now? -- Johnfos 01:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, passed.  Well done!  By the way, I really don't know which category at WP:GA to add this too.  Could you suggest one?  I have it in Geology and geophysics, but that may be wrong...so if you could find one it would be great (and place it there yourself if you like, or you can tell me and I'll do it). Giggy UCP 04:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I had a close look at the categories and am really not sure where the article fits in either, so will just go along with what you think.  Thanks. -- Johnfos 04:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're happy with the current position? Ok, that's all that counts :D Giggy UCP 04:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article nomination on hold 

message: I have removed the following section, which was located immediately after the lead.  It is poorly written, poorly referenced, and not properly integrated into the article: Johnfos (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section 

message: Is there a reason the article goes into details of virtually every form of renewable energy except hydro-electricity?  Shall I start working on it, or it is excluded for other reasons? -- Chuq (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please start working on it. Johnfos (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. 199.125.109.80 (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hydroelectricity 

message: I've added some tags to this article, indicating what work is needed.  In the meantime I've delisted it as a GA.  Feel free to re-nominate it at WP:GAN later on if you wish. Johnfos (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisted GA 

message: I think that one problem we are running into now with this article is that there is just too much relevant information which needs to be included, and the article has too many sections and sub-sections.  So I would suggest spinning off two other articles: Renewable energy industry in Australia (which would include company info and initatives) and Renewable energy policy in Australia (which would include politics, government issues, and public attitudes).  These articles would cover the non-technical aspects of renewables, and summaries of them could then be easily included in the main Renewable energy in Australia article.  This approach would comply with Wikipedia:Summary style. Johnfos (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting off articles 

message: If someone has them, can we include historical figures on renewable energy in Australia? I'm thinking of something like "in 2000, 2001, 2002 etc. Australia produced this many megawatts of wind/solar/biomass etc." That could be summerised quite nicely in a table. I added the wind power figures from here, p21:
Year	Total (MW)	Wind Power	Solar Power	Geothermal	Ocean Power	Biofuels	Biomass
2000	          	32        	           	          	           	        	
2001	          	73        	           	          	           	        	
2002	          	105       	           	          	           	        	
2003	          	198       	           	          	           	        	
2004	          	380       	           	          	           	        	
2005	          	708       	           	          	           	        	
2006	          	817       	           	          	           	        	
2007	          	824       	           	          	           	        	
It would allow for a nice overview of how renewable energies are getting traction (or not).
--invenio tc 23:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical figures 

message: Suggest to rename Ocean power to Tidal power to be in line with the naming of the main article.
--invenio tc 23:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming of Ocean Power to Tidal Power 

message: I'm just wondering about the phrase "will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 400,000 tonnes per year". To declare my bias, I'm a climate activist and a renewables enthusiast, but it's a bit misleading to claim that installing 154MW of solar power will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It won't - it will just produce electricity without emitting greenhouse gases. Energy demand is increasing in Australia, and the coal-fired electricity sector is in expansion as is the renewables sector. Renewable energy only reduces greenhouse gas emissions if it meets more than all of the new demand and begins to eat into the amount of power created by coal-fired generators, forcing coal-fired power stations to close down or reduce their output. At the moment there aren't even any plans to stop building new coal-fired power stations, and therefore the renewable energy sector is not doing anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (although it is producing energy). Renewable energy doesn't reduce greenhouse gas emissions - closing down coal-fired power stations does. --Sumthingweird (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar power station in Victoria 

message: I am curious as to the opinion of others if this article is too loaded with opinions, and polls?
Can we balance this with hard numbers?
For example is the number of people having taken up paying their energy producers for the 100% Green energy schemes available ANYWHERE?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.180.92.240 (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think is fair to have a "Public opinion" section, but you make a good point regarding the difference of supporting something the Government is responsible for or doing something yourself. GreenPower uptake data is available and relevant . --Elekhh (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion, emotion, Polls have a place? 

message: Sections of this article, relating to the Australian Government policies and legislation require a significant update. Notably:
* References to MRET - "Mandatory Renewable Energy Target" is now an out-of-date term, as the Renewable Energy Target is no longer referred to as such. See the ORER website. Australia now has a "Large-Scale Generation Target" (LRET) for power stations and a "Small-Scale Renewable Energy Scheme" (SRES) for rooftop solar and solar hot water.
* Targets are now 41,000 GWh by 2020 for the LRET and "uncapped" for the SRES (calculated as 28 million "Small-Scale Technology Certificates")
* The history of the MRET section needs to be updated to reflect the recent actions of the Labor Government.  --Kincuri (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy Updates 

message: This section also needs a revision, as some significant companies have not been mentioned and some probably should not be there in the first place.
* Edwards and Solahart are subsidiary companies of Rheem Australia and they each produce Solar hot water systems, I don't know if they fit as I thought this article was about renewable electricity.
* Solar Systems is now defunct
* Infigen Energy should be on this list as a major wind farm developer
* AGL should be on this list as they own several wind farms and landfill gas power stations
* Energy Developments Limited and Landfill Management Solutions should be there as a major Landfill Gas power station owners
* Hydro Tasmania is just as significant as Snowy Hydro
* BP Solar no longer produce panels in Australia and perhaps would be better replaced by Silex or even Solar Shop Australia
 
The Clean Energy Council provides a better indication of industry players here --Kincuri (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Companies 

message: Substituted at 04:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment comment 

message: Hello all
The article (Renewable energy in Australia) almost needs a complete rewrite in my opinion.
The introduction is extremely basic, starting with a sentence on what types of renewables exist, followed by some numbers that are not friendly to newcomers.
There is a misplaced/incorrect table up the top as well (biomass really generated more than wind, solar and hydro in 2018? I think not). The only graph up to date is the one with two pie charts (Australian Electricity Generation, by type, 2017). 
The "Australian renewable power plants" map is extremely outdated, given its title is "Australian Renewable Power Plants Above 3 Kilowatt Capacity". Anyone with a relatively modern Solar PV system has more capacity than that (unless you want to include millions of houses on the graph, then this needs to be updated or removed).
The two photos of wind farms are not representative of modern developments, and the article includes a photo of the White Cliffs Solar Power Station, now decommissioned, but lacks any photos of a modern Solar PV farm.
I'm sure some of the info in this is helpful, but it really needs a rewrite because as it stands it is a conglomerate of uncoordinated facts and figures.
I have started rewriting the page and is accessible from my user page, but it is still in need of much more work.
DiamondIIIXX (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of page