Talk:Green energy

message: We need to be clear that "green energy" is jargon used by its proponents. If you'd chill on the edits for a minute I'll try and add some balance to this article. -- stewacide 19:42, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite so. In some countries, such as the Netherlands, there is an official 'green energy' scheme, and while opinions may differ as to the 'greenness'of various energy forms the term is used by everyone. Jens Nielsen 16:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jargon

message: Can anyone tell what rationelle they use to exclude nuclear power? It doesn't seem to be mentioned on the sites listed (or the parts of them I looked at).
:Many and various. For a bit of a laugh, have a look at the reason given in this old version of the sustainable energy article that nuke is not renewable and compare with the current version. I agree that nuke is not renewable, but did the authors of this have any thought towards the logic of what they were saying? Or were they just repeating slogans?
:The challenge is not to respond with the opposite POV. Andrewa 21:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should change nuclear energy to nuclear fission, as opposed to nuclear fusion (not yet commercially possible) which has none of the major problems of fission (i.e. fission radioactive waste deteriorated very rapidly max. 2 years I think, compared to 240.000 yrs for fission waste) Arnoutf 12:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depending on weather fission uses a once through or an advanced reprocessing cycle as well as what type of neutron spectrum is utilised the waste decays to uranium ore levels anywhere between 300 and 10000 years. Nuclear fusion waste decays to similar levels within a few hundred years depending on the material used to build the reactor. The main advantage with fusion is that the actual quantity of waste is much less J.Ring 00:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In the Netherlands, wehre there is an official green energy scheme, ãnd nuclear power is excluded - notably without any outcry. We don't need to try to determine what is 'green' or emission free, just determine the views and the facts.Jens Nielsen 16:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is possibly because the Netherlands only operate one nuclear reactor. I imagine if France were to introduce a similar scheme there would be more of a controversy. J.Ring 00:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nuclear power

message: Biomass is included on allthe sites I read. Really, EVERYTHING is poluting in some respect (in fact things like solar power and wind turbines are far worse for the environment than conventional power sources when you take into account the energy used and pollution caused by thir production, but don't tell the environmentalists that...). -- stewacide
:Wrong; wind turbines repay the energy used in their construction in a few months of use; less for the larger turbines. --James S. 16:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is always pollution arising from manufacture. However, it's important to get a sense of the proportions, and any life cycle comparison reveals that wind power is incomparably better than a fossil powered plant. Have a look at the eXternE study, for one example. Jens Nielsen 16:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biomass

message: The way commercial electricity is produced has received attention from the public due to substantial environmental effects. There are number of innovations in methods of production with higher costs compared to bulk production of electricity. To make these environmentally improved methods of production commercially attractive, "green energy" was invented as a commercial product. 
In an interconnected electricity grid there is no possibility for identification, so "green electricity" is and will remain an administrative product until it is the only type of energy left to use.
Research is done with digital connected source-consumption systems bypassing the physical electricity grid. These new technical systems extent the present administrative systems in divers ways like on-line, near online and off-line.
Egbert Bouwhuis at GPX
--212.238.188.99 20:09, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  green electricity is physical non-existant for users. 

message: Hydro plants produce waste water?  Oh really?  --Wtshymanski 21:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about adding a secton about Hydro?? User:FLJuJitsu 00:33 05 October 2007  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hydro

message: *There are many people who oppose "Green Energy".  Their contention is that "Green Energy" has not been proven to have zero or near zero environmental impact.  Some who hold these opinions also hold that everyone must reduce their own individual power consumption.  Others who hold these opinions do not have any concern for environmental impact.  
*Many who oppose "Green Energy" point to what they lable as "environmentalists constantly shifting opinions" concerning what is "Green Energy".  Until recently environmentalists claimed that large-scale hydroelectric power was a "Green Energy" source.  At present supporters of "Green Energy" do not hold that hydroelectric power is a "Green Energy" source.
This strikes me as unreferenced POV. The phrase "environmentalists constantly shifting opinions" gets zero Google hits. We should gets some sources for these "many people who oppose" it. -Willmcw 19:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, you're right, this bit need some cleaning up. also, all the climate change and environmental activists that I know consider small scale hydro to be a clean energy source. --naught101 06:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy over Green Energy 

message: Due to the number of green energy suppliers around the world, and their varying shades of green, may I suggest that these may be best discussed and linked to in separate national articles, rather than here. This would also avoid the need for a potentially long list of internal and external links to such suppliers & comparison sites in this article.
For examples see :Category:Green electricity by country.
See also the Wikipedia policy on external links.
Gralo 14:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed guideline: National green energy suppliers & comparison sites

message: I haven't looked over the article, but just from the name they seem like the same thing. The only difference that I can think of is that nuclear is not considered "renewable". --Tea and crumpets 03:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a merge suggestion to both pages.  I agree that there is a large degree of overlap, and insofar as "green energy" may be slightly different from renewable energy, such differences could be adequately described in the renewable energy article in a well-written paragraph.  It seems "green" may be part of the debate about "renewable" (e.g. "how green is this particular renewable energy"), but not enough to warrant its own article in the long run. --Xaliqen (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, the discussion was archived and I linked to the archived discussion for future reference.--Xaliqen (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Shouldn't this be merged with "[[Renewable Energy]]"?

message: I agree with Tea and Crumpets. When searched wich both Google and Yahoo, "Renewable energy" totals 58 mln hits while "Green energy" only totals 12 mln hits. But is energy from 'green' and 'renewable' the same thing? On global average the green is somewhat more peculiar, a bit more green then the 'renewable' source. Many countries consider biomass as renewable, but not as green because it is used as a fuel for making steam, just like coal. Many people see green as the triplet of wind, solar and small hydro. Biomass is a major source, so it determines a lot on the whole. So, although I agree with Tea and Crumpets, I am not so keen on swapping the both definitions, I would rather plea for a more differentiated approach. Bouwhuise (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are the same thing, that's why this page should be a summary of the definitions of green energy and nothing else. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 14:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The real question is whether the debate surrounding green energy could be adequately addressed within the broader context of the renewable energy article.  Personally, I think that this could be addressed to the community's satisfaction.  Please also refer to the relevant discussion above and at the renewable energy talk page.  --Xaliqen (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Renewable Energy]] 5 times higher hitrate on websearch

message: How is this different from Sustainable energy and Renewable energy anyway? Aren't they all the same thing? Why have 3 articles? Darx9url (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The obvious question is what to call the merged article.  I would say sustainable energy is the best bet.  Although I think the term is a bit vague, at least it includes the other two.  Yaris678 (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

text: *Comment. It is often said that Sustainable energy = renewable energy + energy efficiency, and this is discussed in the Sustainable energy article. Johnfos (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

text: *Comment. Yaris has asked me to comment here... Please stick with the original merge proposal: Green energy and Sustainable energy.  To try to expand that proposal, after the discussion had already started, to include Renewable energy, is inappropriate, confusing, and misleading.  Renewable energy is way too long to be merged anyway, as WP:SIZERULE says that if an article is > 60 KB it probably should be divided. Johnfos (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Ok, how about merging renewable and sustaianble enrgy (if its NON Polluting) into an article CLEAN GREEN ENERGY Also, no mention of an ongoing "Global Energy Independence Day"(Ref Tesla Society ) Held every year on the great energy pioneer Nikola Teslas birthdate Jul.10th Nikola Tesla(1856-1943) To encourage, support and promote CLEAN GREEN ENERGY! Thanks!IMPVictorianus (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about merging Sustaianable/renewable enrgy to CLEAN GREEN  energy?