Talk:Renewable energy in the United States

message: So, I'm a bit confused... is this article still under construction? If not, then it fails broad coverage and the GA immediately as there is no mention of hydro power (am I missing something? for instance, the A rated Renewable energy in Iceland discusses it) . Aside from that, there are these problems: 
*"Renewable Energy Organizations" section reads like an advertisement, the difference in tone between this section and the rest of the article is marked. I really hope it wasn't copied verbatim from somewhere...
*"Wind power costs" subsection is a verbatim copy from the Energy Policy pdf. 
*Is the EESI logo picture really necessary?
That's all that comes to mind right now with regards to the GA criteria. Everything else looks fine, barring more prevalent copy and paste. --Meowist 06:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Failed

message: Hi.  After a review of the article and the previous GA discussion, I think the article is pretty close to GA status, but not just yet.  It is certainly a very good article, very informative in its limited scope, but there do seem to be some nagging issues (some of which have already be mentioned but still persist).  My suggestions mostly piggy back of the previous suggestions made by Meowist:
*The "Renewable Energy Organizations" still reads like an advertisement.  Part of the problem lies with the prose style of the original pages, especially since none of them are referenced very well anyways (a grand total of three references among four articles.  And all three are in the American Council on Renewable Energy article).  What I might suggest is to either:
:*Eliminate the prose altogether (most of it is just copy and pasted from the main articles anyways) and merely provide links to the main pages, perhaps with an overarching bit of prose for the section as a whole.
::OR
:*Rewrite the main articles a bit (fixing prose style, adding references, and expanding content), so that appropriate portions of the articles can be transcluded.  (This option is more work, but in the long term would probably give better results)
:The main issue is that you are depending on the strength of the original articles, which do not hold up under GA scrutiny.  Afterall, the entire text from the American Council on Renewable Energy has been transcluded onto this page.  Seems kind of sloppy, not to mention unnecessary.
*The "Wind power costs" is still pretty much verbatim from the source (just reworded slightly).  I don't see this as a deal breaker necessarily but, again, it seems somewhat sloppy.
*Overall the article is well referenced, but the format jumps around alot.  Ideally, all references should be done using a citation template.
*The "External links" section is a bit bloated.
*The "Future power stations" category is misleading.
*The intro needs to be expanded considerably, to effectively summarize the article.  An initial list of renewable energy sources (bio, wind, solar, etc.) might be a good place to start.  A sentence like that is in the "Rationale for renewables" section, but might me more appropriate in the introduction.
*The "Aesthetics and the environment" in the wind section seems unneeded to the topic at hand.  Or, conversely, it may just need to state more clearly its importance to the topic.
*And, along with Meowist's concerns, what about hydro?  Also ocean power systems?  And biomass? (I'm ignorant on this topic, but I assume biomass is different than biofuel?)  These are mentioned briefly in the background section but that's it.  Even if there has been limited commercialization in those areas, explain why.
Overall I think it is a very good article, but it does need some work.  For the time being I'll put the nomination on hold (rather than failing it outright).  Hopefully you can find some time to implement some of my and Meowist's suggestions.  If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to ask here. Drewcifer3000 12:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a friendly reminder since I forgot to put it in my original review.  Since the GA nomination is on hold, you have a total of 7 days to address the issues noted above.  On July 31 the nomination will fail, but you're still welcome to renominate the article at a later date. Drewcifer3000 08:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair enough.  I've gone ahead and failed its nomination. Drewcifer3000 09:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New GA review

message: I would like an additional article about Renewable energy in the United States, including generation of renewable energy in the USA.--Nukeless (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Renewable energy in the United States

message: Isn't it a renewable energy? Calvingao (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is hydroelectricity

message: Why is the Apollo Alliance (Social Justice,Environmental,and Labor) directed by Van Jones and others, as featured on the Glenn Beck show on Fox News (2009-08-01) redirecting to "Renewable energy in the United States?"
Jessemckay (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What the heck is going on here?

message: There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Renewable energy about the order of the renewable energy type sub-sections in all related articles. Currently in most articles there is no recognisable order. It is proposed to adopt either alphabetical order or order by importance. Alphabetic order would help legibility of the article and consistency with other articles and templates. Order by current importance (electricity generation) for the US would be Hydro, Bio, Wind, Geo, Solar. Your feedback is welcome. Elekhh (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually pretty happy with the ordering as it is. Hydroelectricity is currently the largest producer of renewable power in the U.S., and so comes first.  The US is the world leader in wind power, and this comes next. And then the stragglers. Johnfos (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. Biofuels are the largest source of renewable energy. Specifically ethanol. You can see that in the graph at the top of the article. Either alphabetically or by importance, the biofuel section needs to be moved up in the article. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Ordering of sub-sections

message: * A Gold Rush of Subsidies in Clean Energy Search by ERIC LIPTON and CLIFFORD KRAUSS, published November 11, 2011 
* Wind Money Fuels Spending and Benefits in Small Schools by MORGAN SMITH published November 10, 2011
* previously Future of Solar and Wind Power May Hinge on Federal Aid by KATE GALBRAITH published: October 25, 2011
99.181.132.65 (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[New York Times]] resources 

message: Support for federal backing of renewables slips, driven by GOP skepticism by Juliet Eilperin and Jon Cohen, published November 10 2011  99.181.132.65 (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Washington Post]] resource  

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Renewable energy in the United States's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Briggs2004":
From Biofuel:  
From Biodiesel:  
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Johnfos (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Renewable energy in the United States]] 

message: The first problem with the source given is that it's undated; they are claiming that CA attained 31% renewable electricity sources but in what year are they claiming that CA already attained this?
Second problem is that:
* they (worldwatch.org) did not source their claim, thus we are lacking a primary source & ability to VERIFY their claim; and
* worldwatch.org's claim is also out of sync with more neutral sources, including The State of CA itself; yes, this is also an activist/biased source who might be engaged in "wishful thinking" regarding their beloved Left Coast's progress; the following are examples of why their (unsourced) claim seems dubious:
State of CA itself says:
* Only 20.6% as of 1H2012.
* Their goal as of April 2011 was only 20% "by the end of 2013," so in the past approx 18 months, did CA electricity producers suddenly JUMP from <20% (less than 20%) to 31%?
* 11.6% was renewable just 3 years ago in 2009; only 33% renewable is The State's goal by 2020 (8 yrs from now). Is CA's goal to have only 2% more renewable by 2020? Have they made a few TIMES more progress than they expected, in just these past 3 years?  Not according to the "20.6%" link to State of CA's other department (CPUC).
Please find a more neutral source who can confirm this dubious stat saying that CA is already @ 31% renewable sources -- and preferably a primary source (or who at least references their primary source so that we can verify).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.252.139 (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See List of U.S. states by electricity production from renewable sources. The data for this is from a primary source - the U.S. Energy Information Administration.  California does generate about 30% of its electricity from renewable sources, and imports shiploads of renewable generated electricity from the Northwest. We're talking two different things here, though. Production versus consumption. Although CA does pretty good, there are at least 5 other states that do better with regards to renewable generated electricty. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: California does indeed get more than 30% of its electrical power from renewable sources.  That 20.6% is just from sources that are eligible for inclusion in the California RPS law.  This does not include traditional hydropower, which is of course also a renewable source.  This is sourced as user Plazak says.  I'm changing the article to reflect this. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim of CA having 31% renewable already (from activist/biased leftist source) is contradicted by numerous, more neutral sources -- and even The State of CA itself 

message: There are currently 63 tables and graphs on this page - maybe more since some of them are hidden. That's too many.
I would propose replacing all of the historical tables of "Generation by year" and whatnot with graphs - some of those graphs already exist, and some of them exist in multiple forms.
There are also graphs by month for each source - they can simply be combined into one figure a la .
There is also the off-topic table of fossil fuel emissions by year, and the overly detailed table of hydro dams. These can be replaced by one or two sentences each, plus links to the appropriate articles.
There are also graphs that try to do too much. Graphs by state should be in map form, not bar chart form. Fifty bars are way too many. Wizmut (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surplus of tables and graphs