Talk:Renewable energy/Archive 2

message: Some content from the Hubbert peak article was moved to a new article Future energy development, this article seems like the more appropriate place to move that info if it's not redundant.  Though perhaps alternative energy != renewable energy? zen master 01:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content from [[Future energy development]] should be merged here 

message: If I were the one to do it (had the knowledge), I would do it.  I'm not lazy, just not up to speed enough.  (My disclaimer)
This article needs more external links to help people keep current on the leading-edge developments, and also deepen their knowledge (if this article has whetted their appetite).  For instance, a lot of high-school and college youth may read the article -- and need to know more.
Links could be technology-specific: wind energy, solar electric, geothermal, ocean thermal, hydrogen fuel, energy storage, etc.
If you know the sites, please add the links.
J.R.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joel Russ (talk • contribs).
I agree with J.R. that the renewable energy section needs more links.  I tried to add a site which contains information on thousands of renewable energy companies and organizations.  However, each time I try to add this external link, Hu12  promptly removes the link citing spam policy.  Could someone take a look at this renewable energy site and tell me specifically why it is not useful and/or considered a spam link? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnloch (talk • contribs).
* The Source for Renewable Energy Guide to more than 10,000 renewable energy businesses and organizations worldwide.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnloch (talk • contribs).
:Your contributions to wikipedia  consist mainly of adding external links and is considered  WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the majority seem only to be external link related. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. Please contribute content, not links. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? see Links normally to be avoided Hu12 00:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs More External Links

message: Geothermal is renewable.  Those two links Pstudier provided don't prove much of anything, the first one just says "it's not strictly renewable compared with hydro", what does that mean exactly?  Those articles are written by energy companies so it's no wonder they are using such words incorrectly.  An energy flow can not "deplete" so we should remove deplete from the text in the article at the very least.  To repeat what I put on Pstudier's talk page that he did not respond to at all: an individual source of geothermal energy may cool down or move across the surface of the earth but the overall energy released by the center of the earth remains unchanged, you have to look at the entire system to determine whether something depletes/is renewable.  Think about it this way, does a specific volcano "deplete" lava when it cools down and goes extinct?  Only resources can deplete, a direct source of energy like heat can move or turn off but depelte is the wrong word, and renewable is the right word.  We should at least add a caveat to the article that states the most commonly accepted definition of geothermal is that it is renewable because renewable can also mean environmentally friendly.  Geothermal is renewable in the same sense that sunlight is renewable, it's not renewable in the sense of biodiesel possibly being renewable (geothermal is an environmental friendly energy source, I agree it does not fit the other definition which is that of a cyclical organic process).  zen master    T  15:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geothermal renewable 

message: In a section detailing how much area would have to be devoted to solar panals in order power Europe, the article states:
"In cloudy Europe this would require about eight square meters"
I am no expert but this is impossible, or at the very least badly written. I haven't edited the article itself because I don't know the right number or where to get it.
:I've just re-read it (it isn't my addition, but I've seen it before) and IMHO it's very clear in context that it's referring to 8 sq m per person.  Are most people happy that that reading is clear? --Nigelj 20:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eight square meters?! 

message: Yet another article with a Criticism section and a layout like this:
* Renewable energy
** Types
*** Hydro
*** Biofuel
*** Solar
** Criticism 
*** Criticism of hydro
*** Criticism of biofuel
*** Criticism of solar
Please get rid of the Criticism section (unless it only contains criticism about the renewable concept itself), and move the criticism to where it belongs:
* Renewable energy
** Types
*** Hydro (including criticism of hydro)
*** Biofuel (including criticism of biofuel)
*** Solar (including criticism of solar)
— Omegatron 19:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: I have adapted the introduction and included a clearer definition of renewable energy. I appreciate that there are broader political and economic definitions of renewable energy which take into account invested energy, life-cycle analysis etc, but these are extraneous. The fact that renewable energy sources are not destroyed is the key criteria. I think this article is good but needs to be refined, it should point to other articles rather than duplicating them; information regarding renewable energy in popular culture, and its connection to environmentalism needs to  be highlighted better. I can make these changes.
--Huggsy 09:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new structure 

message: * "timber and nuclear industries' advocate"
* "who owns a chain of grocery stores whose refrigeration units benefit from cheap power"
* etc.
Please stop adding these, Skyemoor.  Read WP:NPOV if you don't understand how to edit neutrally.  Putting "qualifications" next to the names of supporters is biased, especially since you're only adding them next to environmentalists and left-wingers.  These make an implied value judgment of the speakers.  Let the facts speak for themselves.  
: You choose to put qualifiers in front of individuals to attempt to influence readers in a particular direction. I'm simply balancing out your efforts with qualifiers also, as in "Fair and Balanced". Skyemoor 18:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What qualifiers did I put to influence readers?  Your qualifiers are not fair or balanced; they are trying to say that the only reason environmentalists or left-wingers would support nuclear power is if they had a personal economic interest in it. — Omegatron 12:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Show me where I put such terms.  You are not being honest...  Skyemoor 18:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You didn't.  I am illustrating the point from the opposite direction. — Omegatron 12:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualifications 

message: I have courageously cut most of the detailed "nuclear power" debate and pasted it to the Sustainable energy article. The arguments were in any case mostly on sustainability. There I have opened also the issue of social and political sustainability, most relevant for nuclear power. Such issues hardly fit under this article. -- The ultimate argument for cut-and-paste job is that this article is very long, whereas the sustainable energy article is still of decent size. The chapter on nuclear here is far from final in wording & content, but this is about the right size for the topics here. MGTom 14:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The parts about Cohen and Tulenko arguing that nuclear should be considered "renewable" belong in the article about "renewables"; not "sustainables".  The parts about environmental impact or environmentalist support can be moved to other articles and linked to, but both of these people argue that nuclear should be considered renewable (not "sustainable"; "renewable") because it has the potential to last a similar amount of time as the traditional renewables. — Omegatron 16:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tulenko is a vested interest, and as such has no bearing on what the definition of renewable is.  Otherwise, we could have countless statements by any number of environmentalists that say it simply isn't so.  This section needs to be dramatically reduced, down principally to pointers to Nuclear power controversy.  Skyemoor 21:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tulenko is the President of the American Nuclear Society (ANS), a not-for-profit, international, scientific and educational organization which got its beginnings from the National Academy of Sciences.  His opinion is relavent. Ajnosek 18:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear power "cut-and-paste" work 

message: This should settle the matter. The definition of renewable energy from the International Energy Agency;
http://iea.org/Textbase/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=1596
----
Renewables include the following categories:
Combustible Renewables and Waste* (CRW):
:Solid Biomass: Covers organic, non-fossil material of biological origin which
:may be used as fuel for heat production or electricity generation.
:Wood, Wood Waste, Other Solid Waste: Covers purpose-grown energy
:crops (poplar, willow etc.), a multitude of woody materials generated by an
:industrial process (wood/paper industry in particular) or provided directly
:by forestry and agriculture (fi rewood, wood chips, bark, sawdust, shavings,
:chips, black liquor etc.) as well as wastes such as straw, rice husks, nut shells,
:poultry litter, crushed grape dregs etc.
:Charcoal: Covers the solid residue of the destructive distillation and
:pyrolysis of wood and other vegetal material.
:Biogas: Gases composed principally of methane and carbon dioxide
:produced by anaerobic digestion of biomass and combusted to produce
:heat and/or power.
:Liquid Biofuels: Bio-based liquid fuel from biomass transformation, mainly
:used in transportation applications.
:Municipal Waste (renewables): Municipal waste energy comprises wastes
:produced by the residential, commercial and public services sectors and
:incinerated in specifi c installations to produce heat and/or power. The
:renewable energy portion is defi ned by the energy value of combusted
:biodegradable material.
Hydro Power: Potential and kinetic energy of water converted into electricity
in hydroelectric plants. It includes large as well as small hydro, regardless of the
size of the plants.
Geothermal Energy: Energy available as heat emitted from within the earth’s
crust, usually in the form of hot water or steam. It is exploited at suitable sites
for electricity generation after transformation or directly as heat for district
heating, agriculture, etc.
Solar Energy: Solar radiation exploited for hot water production and electricity
generation. Does not account for passive solar energy for the direct heating,
cooling and lighting of dwellings or other.
Wind Energy: Kinetic energy of wind exploited for electricity generation in wind
turbines.
Tide/Wave/Ocean Energy: Mechanical energy derived from tidal movement,
wave motion or ocean current and exploited for electricity generation.
----
Skyemoor 14:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What "matter" does it "settle"?  Very good work on finding an official definition, though.  What other ones can we find? — Omegatron 16:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of Renewable Energy 

message: Here's the definition I found from an engineering textbook: "The term, "a renewable energy source" is used for energy flows which are replenished at the same rate they are used. The prime renewable energy source is solar radiation. Energy stores which are part of the natural process of converting solar energy into heat radiation are also considered renewable energy sources"   
Bent Sorensen, Renewable Energy, Elsevier 2004. 
--Huggsy 21:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Elsevier is a reliable source. It's interesting that it is not how slowly it is used up which matters, but that it is replenished. Stephen B Streater 19:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a new section (if it remains supported by Wikipedians) on Renewable_energy_development#Statutory_definitions_of_renewable_energy. IMO the renewables definition battle is over prestige and vested interests that should finally result in favourable legislation, this is why statutory definitions matter. The proposed locality for such information is somewhat distant from the main titles, but that is where it fits. MGTom 09:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  MGTom, IMO The Renewable Energy Development article looks very much like the kind of article we should have here! --Huggsy 08:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just joined this, but I tried to catch up by reading this page and the archived debate, and I still don't get it. You seem to be arguing about what "Renewable Energy" should be. Should is a POV. If "Renewable Energy" is a defined phrase, who has defined it? Has more than one person defined  or group defined it? How do their definitions differ? If there is controversy, shouldn't it be front and center? My understanding is that a Wikipedia article doesn't try to decide what "Renewable Energy" should be, but to explain all the POV's, where they overlap, and where they differ. TRWBW 04:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Types of Renewable Energy above for a definition by the International Energy Agency.  Skyemoor 10:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Renewable Energy 

message: Should the historical usage be the first section?  This is a typical layout for an article.  History first and then modern sources.
It says "Throughout history, various forms of renewable and non-renewable energies have been employed."  Why mention non-renewable ones in this article?
Could also include more modern history, like the origin of the term and its original meaning. — Omegatron 01:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No Mion 03:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No what? — Omegatron 04:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, sir!!, if you want to keep the reader interested you cant start with the history, if its a long history section it makes the article unreadable, and is annoying for people who are not interested in the history at all, so at the bottom , or on a seperate page , sort of extra talkpage,  ?  reg. Mion 09:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn,t find it in the manual of style, / body section, maybe it depends on the subject ? reg. Mion 09:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I doubt there are any guidelines about it.  It's up to us how we want to order it.  It's just typical to introduce the history of something as the first section of an article.  In my mind, the first section should be a history setion, and say things like "Wind and solar power has been used for ___ of years, providing man with a clean source of energy..."  "The word 'renewable' was coined in the 1970s to refer to these sources, and contrast them with fossil fuels...", and so on.  The first picture in the article is a historical source of renewable energy, after all.  :-) — Omegatron 12:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same problem occured on the page Fuel cell, i think if you want to make a clear structure in which you can quickly retrieve the info you want, and if you are deeply interested you keep on reading (the bottom side), now, that would say, the intro,  than the element, descriptions, etc, (in short the actual state of the subject) and if i am deep/deep interested, i would like to read the history, (how did it come to this actual state). reg. Mion 13:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see on Fuel cell, history is silently moving up -:).Mion 13:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure what's best.  Just putting an idea out there.  The history section would certainly need to be reorganized before putting it first. — Omegatron 13:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorder 

message: as an uninterested comment giving person i'd say nuclear should not be in an article about renewable energy, because it is not renewable, that's no judgement on its usefullness or potential as an alternative energy source, or the fact that due to abundance of uranium it can potentially provide energy for thousands of years, its just not renewable. so shouldn't be included.Burnt-sienna 17:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article isn't saying that nuclear is renewable.  It's saying that there's debate about it. — Omegatron 18:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is honest disagreement on what 'renewable' means. Same with 'clean', 'green', and 'ecofriendly.' It gets more complicated because there are both technical issues and policy issues. Just to give you one example of why it's not so simple, geothermal energy, which everyone considers renewable, is 'renewed' by nuclear fission. The fission just happens inside the earth instead of in a reactor, otherwise it's identical to nuclear energy. Wikipedia policy is to give all the sides of the debate. TRWBW 23:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think nuclear power can stay as a renewable energy source.  About 95-97% of nuclear fuel (uranium 238 or 235 in most cases ) is recyclable after it's used.  --MonkBirdDuke 18:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Into what, weapons grade plutonium? And then how is it 'recycled' after that? This is not true recycling, as the aluminum in aluminum cans can be reused countless times, but that is not the case for Uranium in any form.  And since the supply is finite, there is no renewable aspect to it.  Skyemoor 18:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 95-97% of the nuclear fuel is recyclable into reusable nuclear fuel (as opposed to making a depository for the whole 100% of it...very wasteful from an environmental and economic standpoint).  The byproduct of that will again be recyclable.  Not considering breeders, recycling, or the oceans vast supply of uranium is how anti-nuclear advocates try to say nuclear energy is not sustainable.  If you instead wanted to reprocess nuclear fuel in a manner to make weapons grade plutonium, then I would imagine that only a few percent of the nuclear fuel could be used.  Personally, I don't know why the United States would even want to do this type of reprocessing since they already have enough to blow the face of the world up some rediculous number of times.  If you're interested in the different types of reprocessing, you can read the nuclear fuel cycle article. Ajnosek 19:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the discussion wasn't about whether you can recycle some nuclear materials into some other nuclear things, but whether that makes them into a renewable energy source in the terms of this article.  --Nigelj 19:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear Energy,  renewable? 

message: I dont think it is appropriate for two people's opinions to be included with both on the same side, it seems very POV also the way it is put is looks like the editor is trying to prove something, and it looks very bad, opinions (who ever makes them) should not be included unless the article is about that person or their views activities etc.Burnt-sienna 18:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section very clearly says that most people don't consider nuclear to be renewable, and that it isn't considered as such by most laws.  What's the problem? — Omegatron 18:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  George bush's comments 

message: Skyemoor, fertilizers and pesticides can be (and are being) made from soybean oils.  One company, Agriliance, makes all their chemicals and adjuvants from a Soy base. And can someone tell me an area where switchgrass is grown, it is only in the research stages.Sjostrom 21:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a surprise? Energy is highly political. In the midwest you get votes by supporting ethanol/corn. In california you get votes by supporting solar and wind. In florida you get votes with the anti-castro lobby by putting a tariff on foreign sugar and ethanol. In texas, you get votes for supporting oil. The biggest political problem with biofuel is that it would probably be cheaper to grow the crops in other countries, and that's not going to get you any votes. TRWBW 23:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethanol