Talk:Future energy development

message: It is breakout from Hubbert Peak. See the discussion there.
Why does the first paragraph now substantially duplicate the first paragraph of the article energy development? Does this not indicate that teh two should be merged? --Wtshymanski 16:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: About this article

message: Comments? zen master 01:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Content should be merged with [[Alternative energy]]

message: Tried to merge with relevent parts of energy development.
:Please add new comments to the Merge then Delete section.  The above is a very old comment. 199.125.109.127 02:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged with energy development

message: Ok, now that i think about it those wikilinks i added to the Oil section are extremely redundant.  But anyway, it doesn't make sense for the one "energy development" link for Oil to be to Hubbert Peak which is the theory that oil is/will start depleting eventually.  Is there such a thing as conventional oil energy development?  Perhaps technology that will allow an increased efficiency of conventional oil extraction?  Though I suppose at some point if conventional oil becomes increasingly inefficient it's effectively thought of as non conventional oil (conventional = easy, non conventional = hard, energy needed for extraction wise)? zen master 00:40, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oil 

message: Electricity from dams has been cheaper than electricity from oil- and gas- burning turbines in many parts of the world for a long time.  The United States has built dams on nearly every river that can sensibly be dammed; this resource is almost completely built out.  In order to mitigate some of the unexpected evironmental damage, the U.S. is currently destroying dams faster than it is building them, but the rate of change is not large.
Like hydroelectric production, geothermal electric production has been cost-competitive, and in use, for years.  Geothermal resources are not as widespread as hydraulic resources, nor typically near population centers, and so geothermal is not currently well built out.
Nuclear electric production was once thought to be the next oil.  Walter Marshall famously declared that it would be "too cheap to meter".  It now appears that nuclear electric production is about as expensive as hydrocarbon-based production.  Nuclear production is as high as it is in France, the U.S., and Japan principally because it was viewed by legislators as bootstrapping a domestic industry and also as being less dependent on volatile foreign supplies, and thus a stabilizing influence on the domestic economies.
Wind power appears to be the next booming supply of energy.  Proponents like to point out that it is the fastest growing source of energy (in late 2004), but this is relative to a small installed base.  In small parts of the world with strong steady winds near population centers (i.e. Denmark), wind power is already price competitive, and is being built out.  As wind turbine prices come down and the technology for siting them in difficult conditions (primarily offshore) matures, wind electric production is expected to grow to supply a significant portion of the world electric demand.
Solar electric (photovoltaic) production is not currently competitive with utility-scale generation from any of the above-mentioned sources.  It is interesting primarily because it can be practically located close to the demand in many parts of the world.  Because it costs so much to move electricity, production that is close to the demand is worth more than remote production.  Even with this advantage, photovoltaic production is currently only competitive when supported by large subsidies or when its use allows a grid connection to be eliminated entirely.
There are many other alternative energy supplies under development.  Tides, ocean currents and deep ocean thermal gradients have all been proposed as sources of energy to be tapped.  A few significantly large tidal generators have been built, but they form navigation hazards and no forseeable buildout would be expected to supply significant amounts of power on a worldwide scale.
Large scale biomass programs, like midwest ethanol added to Californian gasoline, appear to consume more energy than they produce and are only cost effective for the producers due to favorable tax and subsidy policies.
:Some comments about incorporating this into the article. 1) The focus should primarily be the world, not the US. A separate article can be created for the US if desired 2) I think some of this information is too detailed and may be better suited for the renewable energy article. 3) Have your sources ready since I disagree with some of material. Ultramarine 20:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok dokey. I did not write it, but I felt it was poorly suited for the Hydrogen economy article and I do not like shredding information that could be useful someplace else. I have no qualms with choosing the tastier morcels and putting them in renewable energy. Quasarstrider 14:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (Moved from Hydrogen Economy)

message: Zen-master, stop censoring facts you do not like. The nuclear industry do not make up these facts. Read what they write, give other references if you disagree. As of now, you are censoring without justification. Ultramarine 01:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am ok with facts, I am not ok with obviously redundant pro nuclear industry marketing cruft.  Why do you so apparently or obviously shill for the nuclear power industry? (I am assuming good faith by asking)  A pro nuclear industry marketing website is hardly a reputable source, scientifically speaking especially.  But first and foremost the content you want kept in the article is woefully POV, very redundant and phrased horribly.  Side note: let me know what you think of the changes I made to the Nuclear power article. I recall myself making a comment on the renewable energy article a few months ago predicting a push for nuclear power, Bush's speech tonight proved that right, which is apparently why there were POV trolls pushing for a definition of renewable energy that included nuclear back then.  It's all coming together now.  zen master    T  01:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WNA is obviosuly trying to promote nuclear power. But they have scientific references for all their claims. Should all references to ASPO be removed from peak oil since they try to promote their view? Please give opposite references, do not censor. I will add the facts back unless you can show that they are false. Ultramarine 02:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: apples vs oranges, peak oil is presented as a theory everywhere, what you want added to this article is obvious marketing cruft that denies the existance of "better" facts.  True facts should be presented as such, not using alleged facts for an obvious advocacy operation [facts shouldn't be "advocating" anything, people/groups/industries do].  Plus, that advocacy or pro nuclear industry POV ignores the historic near consensus against an expansion of nuclear power (in the U.S.).  zen master    T  02:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Last try. Give references that shows that the scientific references WNA gives are wrong. Note that I have used scientific studies from environmental groups in the article, for example to show the environmental impact of fossil fuels. Should they be removed? Should ASPO be removed? Ultramarine 02:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just about scientific consensus, marketing cruft is not allowed on wikipedia.  That content isn't just "facts" it is obvious POV advocacy. zen master    T  05:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Science is allowed as is facts. Add your own POV backed with references, do not censor just because you do not like the facts. Ultramarine 08:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: NPOV means all POV should be mentioned. Not that none should be. -- Ec5618 08:38, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
The info is already in the article, redundant and irrelevant facts are a form of POV, especially when presented in the manner they were. That stuff is completely unbalanced and Ultramarine has no intention of balancing it. "cost competitive" ignores cost of radioactive nuclear waste disposal. "remains toxic indefinitely" referring to chemical industry waste is obvious POV designed to mitigate fact that nuclear waste is radioactive for 10,000 years.  The fact that Ultramarine is citing the same pro-nuclear industry website 5 times in one section is another strike against him.  The claim that nuclear contributes less deaths than coal and hydro is entirely misleadling (even to the point of lying for obvious POV), it counts dam (failures) as purely a hydro energy source which is misleading, the other reasons damns are built include: irrigation, reservoirs, flood abatement. That pro nuclear industry website also conviniently ignores deaths to nuclear plant workers, but they suspiciously include coal/hydro plant worker deaths, why is that? That info is so obviously propaganda POV that to counter it would be like counting the 120,000+ people that died in the atomic blasts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII against nuclear power (in which case nuclear power would lose). Coal may definitely be more harmful than nuclear, but the emphasis should be on increased efficiency, rather than merely arguing between coal/hydro and nuclear to maintain the status quo of energy production. If renewable energy sources have less deaths per energy unit then we shouldn't use coal or nuclear?  Is 0 deaths per energy unit an option? zen master    T  08:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: You make many claims here. Add these objections to the text if you have any scientific papers that back them up. Ultramarine 14:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Zen-master, I was curious just how you would obtain zero deaths per unit of energy.  Every energy source has costs, unfortunately, and sometimes those are paid in lives.  My specalization is in industrial safety, and I can tell you that accidents don't need a big coal/gas/nuclear/hydro plant to occur.  We make trade offs every day, accepting the risk to gain something of importance.  Oh, and POV is not involved when you cite a fact.  It is scientific fact that chemical hazmat is hazardous until destroyed (which cannot occur chemically for something like arsenic or lead), while radioactive hazmat naturally decays.
To the author - nice work.  OmegaPaladin 11:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop censoring the facts

message: I have some doubts as to whether this article belongs in the encyclopedia.  See Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  This article seems to contain a great deal of speculation, mixed in with a limited number of facts, and as such is inappropriate for being largely extrapolation and speculation.  Kelly Martin 22:02, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
:The same could be said for Hubbert peak, global warming, overpopulation, space colonization, and all the subjects under category Futurology . The future of energy production is extremely important. It is researched by most governments and several international organizations. It is the subject of numerous peer-reviewed papers. Since it is of great practical importance and studied scientifically, it can be in Wikipedia. It is certainly more important to have than numerous Wikipedia articles describing imaginary future lands and societies in computer games and movies. There are 130 Wikipedia articles about Star Trek, so surely Wikipedia can find place for a few articles about important future concerns like oil depletion, overpopulation, or energy development. Ultramarine 00:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedic?

message: The sections on "fossil" fuels could be balanced with some information on the abiogenic theory of oil production, in which case the oil fields are largely self-replenishing over time.  I'm also uneasy about the statement that fossil fuels will eventually run out.  This is too obvious to be mentioned, as any fuel source will eventually run out due to the law of entropy.
:MSTCrow 04:34, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
* "Run out" is also a limited viewpoint.  We could mine a carbonaceous asteroid to get more carbon if we wanted to continue using natural mineral fuels.  But the energy is more concentrated in the fissionables in a metallic asteroid.  (SEWilco 05:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is correct.  As fascinating as the abiogenic petroleum origin theory is from an epistemological and earth science standpoint, it is not very relevant to the future energy development discussion.  Whether or not there are massive amounts of petroleum deeper in the earth, little of it will be recoverable in the next few decades.  Cheap oil is apparently at an end, and so energy production will inevitably shift to other sources, a process that is quite obviously gaining momentum.  The scary possibility, from the perspective of public health and global warming, is that it might devolve back to coal burning, of which we can still do plenty.  The alternative, developing new energy production technology and/or infrastructure, especially clean/renewable sources, is quite expensive and liable to trouble economies even as they're reeling from soaring petroleum prices. Fluent aphasia 17:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fossil" Fuels 

message: The Bhopal disaster caused 15,000 or more immediate fatalities - Chernobyl caused 56 immediate fatalities with the probability of almost 4,000 deaths later on . Simesa 16:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the article you cite said in 2005 The number of people killed by radiation as a result of the Chernobyl disaster, the world's worst nuclear accident, is so far 56, much lower than previously thought, United Nations organisations said on Monday. A report compiled by the Chernobyl Forum, which includes eight U.N. agencies, said the final death toll was expected to reach about 4,000 -- much lower than some previous estimates -- and that the greatest damage to human health was psychological. So the figure of 56 fatalities is as of 2005, and presumably includes the 31 immediate fatalities. The figure of 4000 eventual deaths is not generally agreed by any means. Andrewa 23:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: "1989 - Colin Campbell predicts that this is the peak year."
*This* is the peak year? By 'this' you mean 1989 or 2005? I couldn't find a reference backing either, can you cite a refernce where he makes the claim. I put Hubbert & OPEC predictions in, which are surely the big two opposing views, not sure what the point of putting wannabe Hubberts in is.
(added) The reference you added is heresay (a person saying Campbell said it without quoting even the book title), I've found the book title and put that in instead. I can't confirm that those pages make that claim, so I've asked the University for a copy of the book to confirm and will put up a scan of the relevent part later.
:The reference  is from the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Science magazine  and does mention the title of the book in the reference list. Ultramarine 12:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please revise the Colin Campbell prediction 

message: Contrary to the statement of the person that deleted it, this graph has been extensively reviewed (see the link from its talk page) and I believe the consensus is that the extrapolation is reasonable, that there are no implications about the causes, that it has an NPOV, and is only borderline original. —James S. 01:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exponential rise predictions are unsustainable in the long run, because they tend to infinity very fast, and nature tolerates no infinities - so question is how long that run is before the prediction fails to apply. One extremely resistant and rare exception is Moore's law, that's still hanging in there, even though every once in a while its demise is predicted, but so far it hasn't happened, computing power doubles every few years, and we know that we have ways to go until we even get close to the computing capacity of the human brain, so it may apply for a good while. But sooner or later it happens, exponential predictions are unsustainable in the long run because they tend to infinity. Similar things are exponential rise in oil production in the lower states, as the begining portion of Hubbert Peak graphs show, and you could always find that an exponential curve-fit is the best fit for the initial rise portion of such curves, but such curves know nothing about the hump in the middle of the graph or even declines. Extrapolations are always risky. In general linear extrapolations are the most confortable, parabolic and higher order ones are less comfortable because they tend to infinity faster, and exponential extrapolations are always the scariest. I would recommend that the above graph be chopped at 2010 as a bare minimum, with a linear extrapolation instead of an exponential one. Blindly applying math to a problem may only emphasize random artifacts, and one should always look at the output and judge the results. Sillybilly 04:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exponential curves very closely fit the onset of a Gompertz sigmoid curve, and I think that makes sense because the underlying cause most closely fits a logistic sigmoid curve, so to the extent that the increased atmospheric energy is proportional to radiative forcing, the begining of the effects of that energy ought to look like an exponential, too.  The wide 95% prediction confidence intervals clearly show the great uncertainty of the extrapolation, and are the traditional means to convey that uncertainty.   Please note that a linear extrapolation of the data would seriously underpredict 2005, with over $120 billion in extreme weather costs already above the exponential curve's 95% confidence interval for 2005.  I am not blindly applying math.  Please see the detailed discussion at Talk:Global_warming#Image:Cost-of-storms-by-decade.gif for more information. —James S. 06:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: you said '$120 billion in extreme weather costs' - i presume you are quoting the cost as adjusted backward to 2001 dollars, or are you modifying the existing graph to 2005 dollars when suggesting it falls within the 95% confidence interval? i'm most curious why you don't defer posting this graph all over wikipedia until you have current, accurate data to do your modeling against. it'll be 2006 in a few days. surely, if you are as committed to promulgating this model on wikipedia as it seems, you should show similar tenacity to acquiring the most recent, reliable data to model against, rather than data that's nearly eight years stale. i think the graph should be pulled entirely until you're working from a complete data set. Anastrophe 07:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sadly, it usually takes more than a few days to total up worldwide costs.  I've answered your questions about inflation at Talk:Global_warming#Inflation_adjustment. You are welcome to try to do better with your own graph instead of removing the work of those who understand inflation. I have provided the data set and links to the tools I have used.  Because you have acted without proper justification, I am replacing the 2nd revision of the graph, because the fact that people like you exist mean that a more serious warning needs to be published. —James S. 22:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: let me see if i have this straight - you're claiming that you understand inflation simply because i made an error in calculating inflation? your sentence above, as it stands, is nothing but a rhetorical dodge - you did not address the question at all. you quoted $120 billion in costs for 2005. are you quoting 2005 costs, or costs as adjusted for 2001 inflation rate, which is what the existing dataset is against? for purposes of your graph, if you are quoting 2005 costs, then the value to plug into your graph would be $110.6B. is that what you used? then there's the other rhetorical dodge - that it takes more than a few days to tote up the worldwide costs. how does that affect the problem that your dataset is nearly eight years stale? at worst, you'll be limited to 2004 costs as the most recent tally. what's stopping you? trouble finding the data? that's not an excuse. if you're going to push your beliefs via this graph, then you have an obligation to use the most current data available - or don't post it at all. newer data could very well confirm your curve - i do hope you'll do an overlay once you get the new data, showing the difference. Anastrophe 17:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: back again, having read your last response again. i tend to skim content, and didn't read the final part of your sentence after you said you were replacing the second revision. with this comment - "because the fact that people like you exist mean that a more serious warning needs to be published" - you've just completely invalidated your claim to empiricism for your graph. you aren't attempting to publish a good faith extrapolation of the data, you're attempting to push your POV. as far as i'm concerned, that's the final word - and i'll be reproducing that quote elsewhere, since you've just admitted to overt POV pushing. that should put an end to your attempts to promulgate this graph. Anastrophe 18:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Even if there were no objections, the graph is only remotely connected to subject of the article. There are many possible forms of damages from global warming and none is discussed in the article in great detail because such details are outside the scope of the article and due to size limitations. These things are discussed in detail in other articles. The same should apply to graphs. If such damages should be mentioned in great detail in this article, there are much better examples, like a decreasing land mass, or if one wants a more catastrophic scenario, release of methane clathrate. Ultramarine 11:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost of extreme weather graph 

message: This shouldn't even have come up, but here's a ref:  Simesa 16:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moon and Tides

message: {Nuclear proliferation is the spread of) nuclear technology, including nuclear power plants but especially
That's not what the main article says! Come off it. Nuclear proliferation specifically means nuclear weapons. Probably a nice try by some anti-nuke campaigner.
As it is much easier to construct a nuclear weapon out of plutonium than the Low-enriched uranium used in more common Thermal reactors,
Actually, it is impossible to construct a nuclear weapon from low-enrichment uranium (or from reactor grade plute for that matter, despite Carter's claimed test which was performed with an intermediate grade), and far, far easier to construct one with HEU than with any sort of plute. The problem is getting the HEU. So I guess the statement above is true, but it's hardly likely to increase the understanding of anyone reading it. Andrewa 14:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed text

message: I'm sorry but a link to a wiki is not a valid source. Said wiki seems to be talking about this document .
"While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review."
I don't see how this justifies saying that Cold Fusion has a new lease on life. I would say that it has the same hopeless lease as before.Christopher 15:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold Fusion 

message: I deleted this:
:"The history of perpetual motion machines is a long list of failed and sometimes fraudulent inventions of machines which produce useful energy "from nowhere" - violating the second law of thermodynamics."
While true, I don't see the connection to the article.  
BTW, the eco-zealots' position, recycling can save us, also violates the second law.
Trekphiler & 02:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Perpuetual deletion

message: The article says, "with an estimated break-even point of $35". $35 for how much?  Trekphiler 02:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarity

message: I just started Comparison of automobile fuel technology. I could use some help. Mike92591 03:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I want some help 

message: I removed the following from the nuclear power section:
:Historically, however, coal and hydropower power generation have both been the cause of more deaths per energy unit produced than nuclear power generation. 
because the link provided (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.htm) does not work. I wanted to check that because I assumed that this refers to unsafe 19th century mines, which would make a comparision unfair. DirkvdM 18:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well,  says "Per amount of electricity produced, hydropower causes 110 fold, coal, 45 fold, and natural gas, 10 fold more deaths than nuclear power." but doesn't cite its sources or calculations so I wouldn't rely on it.  Better is  which says "The report, prepared for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, says ... that in proportion to the amount of power produced, power stations fuelled by coal and oil or driven by hydro power had caused 1000 times as many deaths as nuclear stations, and gas-fired stations had caused 15 times as many casualties as nuclear ones."  There's  which quotes the DOE as saying "recent research shows that the frequency of accidents and the number of deaths from nuclear power production is less than for energy production from coal, oil, natural gas or hydropower." and gives nmbers on the next slide.  See also Chernobyl disaster#Comparison with other disasters - eliminate Chernobyl (a plant that never could be built in the civilian West) and the debate goes away. I'll restore the sentence. Simesa 19:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deaths per energy unit

message: http://www.world-nuclear.org is used way to many times,and by no means neutral
in ther sites objectives we can read
*--87.65.163.96 00:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: W:NPOV includes the POV of all sides. It is not an exclusion of views. Add a sourced opposing one if it is missing.Ultramarine 01:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with Nuclear Power being listed at the top of sustainable energy sources.  Nuclear Power is a fossil fuel.  Even if advanced methods are used, it's not sustainable or renewable.  To mine, mill and process Uranium requires a very large amount of fossil fuels.  As the price of fossil fuels go up, cost and the energy required to extract the uranium becomes prohibitive.  The energy required to decommisssion the nuclear power plants once they've been used for 25-40 years is also prohibitive.74.61.37.1 11:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV nuclear 

message: "The pessimistic, argue that due too the Hubbert peak theory, production will peak following a hubbert curve  ,no matter what the price of uranium will be(assuming identical technology)." The given source is a claim in a blog. John Busby, the person who makes the claim, give no source so it is unverifiable. Furthermore, it is just strange. Uranium is not as fossil fuels, it is present in most rock and the seawater and will not suddenly run out, only gradually and slowly become more expensive.Ultramarine 15:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are forgetting,that your not interested in uranium,it self.But in the energy that it contains.If energy is not an issue then sure ,you can mine arbitrary low grades.Uranium is not like say gold,with gold you just pour in more energy,and you can even extract it from sea water.For uranium,pumping alone that water,will already cost you 30% of the energy it will give you.It's not uranium that will run out,is minable ores of uranium that will run out.In other words,the question is, if the juse worth the squeeze.--87.64.8.74 16:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right about the that enery extracted is what is important, but your unsourced claims regarding how much is required is incorrect. Uranium contains extremely much energy, so extraction from seawater or granite still gives a net energy gain.Ultramarine 16:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It contains extremely much energy,BUT like i said,pumping alone will eat 30%,if you add up further processing,no one knows how to do it.The concentration are too low.May be you have a link that show that they did that.The constraint is not just to produce it(say ,you just want to make a bomb),you have too produce it with net gain.For my source ,i wanted to show that hubbert theory is applied to uranium ores,the difference is,like with fossil fuels,that ,mainly economist ,claim that global hubbert curve is rubbish since the market will fix it.I read my source as saying that we are in the rising part of the curve,so we are on the hubbert curve,that's what i'm saying.If the hubbert curve is nice enough,you can use it to guess future discoveries.You holding more or less that the resource is infinite.Keep in mind that all this supposes identical technology.
*--87.64.8.74 17:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: From the conclusion:
Ultramarine 17:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Your to used in wikilowering.It's not sourced because i didn't intended to puted in the article.I read it in a pdf long ago.You can add your stuf here Uranium mining#Recovery from seawater.Shure there are other methods then pumping, i just whanted to show that very fast,you have consumed more then what you will gane,but be aware that extraction from sea water,or something with very low grade,you will end up with both the problem of renewable and nucleair with out the benefits.--87.64.8.74 17:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no evidence for you claims.Ultramarine 17:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs as sources 

message: This article contains an internal link to mini hydro, which does not exist.
I changed it to micro hydro, which does exist, and a biased editor deleted my change.
The list of irrational, biased Wikipedia editing grows every day.
The source is clearly being attacked, not the content. Shall we file an WP:RFC as a group? Escientist (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: please sign your comments. you may do so by typing ~~~~ after them. to your comments, your edit was not merely as you represent it above - you were including unsourced commentary with the edit, along with a typo just for added measure. it was reverted because it was an addition of unsourced commentary. i overlooked the mini/micro issue. here's a link to the diff - it would be helpful if you would link to these specific complaints you have, as it would save other editors the redundant effort: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Future_energy_development&diff=next&oldid=181355018 Please feel free to file an RFC, though i'm not sure who the "we" are you refer to. Anastrophe (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: okay, that's the last straw. i cannot continue to just allow these vile personal attacks to stand. Anastrophe (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that the problem here is that Escientist fails to understand that where an edit contains something that ought to be reverted it is entirely normal to revert the whole edit, rather than try to separate the wheat from the chaff. Anastrophe was correct in his view that your unsourced commentary should be reverted. The change from mini to micro was done in the same edit, and was accordingly reverted. Mayalld (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mini hydro versus micro hydro 

message: In Energy development I added an internal link to Ethanol fuel
Anastrophe deleted it and added one to
:Main articles: Alcohol fuel, Biomass, Vegetable oil economy, vegetable oil as fuel, biodiesel, Ethanol fuel
That's OK - Fair enough - The message still gets through.
I essentially copied Anastrophe's main sources links into Future energy development
and he irrationally deleted it (apparently because it came from me).
I've tried to negotiate with him offline with no success.
Does this make sense to anyone else? Am I the only one with this problem?
Others of you have reversed his deletions of my input. Escientist (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it doesn't make sense to me either. it stood out because it was distinctly different from the other 'main article' tags. but i guess my frustration at being attacked at every turn has bled into routine edits. you're welcome to restore the edit, i shouldn't have reverted it. Anastrophe (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biofuel main articles 

message: #the section needs to be split into fission energy and fusion energy
#then the fusion section needs to be expanded to talk about ITER, and DEMO which is a (DEMOstration power plant) being built in japan, to demenstrate commercial viability, producing 2500MW, 1000MW(40% efficient) will be on sale. see http://www.pppl.gov/polImage.cfm?doc_Id=48&size_code=Doc
#then nuclear power section will need to be split into it's own page my suggestion future energy development of nuclear power this will allow:
::::1)the fission section to be summarized, and merged into that page
::::2)create links with the already existing nuclear power
::::3)and have create a space where the information about the commercial aspects of fusion technology can go... since right now everythings experimental
Anyway that's my idea, tell me what you think... I won't be doing it myself, I'm currently busy with the Kardashev scale. THX--Sparkygravity (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear power section is too long - my suggestioins