Talk:Energy policy of the United Kingdom

message: I'd like to suggest that much of the information on this page is slightly out of date and based on the 2007 Energy White Paper, rather than the 2009 LCTP and subsidiary documents (e.g. Renewable Energy Strategy). I've made some updates, but further work (e.g. updating the table on renewables, which is dated 2004, and to reflect e.g. the election of a new Government) may be useful.Betdud (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of Date

message: I wonder if folks agree with me this article could do with more work
# the lead paragraph citing the 2003 Energy White Paper gives the impression the article that follows may be out of date (as indeed some, though not all, of it is)
# There is little easily summarised historical context, a History section might help readers understand the evolution of policy
# Primary Energy Sources has no subheading or consideration of the second largest energy source, Oil.
# Issues not thoroughly addressed by UK policy might more usefully be restyled Criticism of UK policy – though it would need careful editorial control to ensure this section stayed true to Wiki principles, reporting from a NPOV well documented and referenced criticism.
Your thoughts?
It is my intention to address and edit this article directly.  I thought I would invite comment while I am still researching the subject.
--Sunbite (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In need of an update - May 2008 

message: I've added the "reads like a review" template to two sections. These sections are not written from a neutral-point-of-view and statements are made without attribution to sources.
"Issues not thoroughly addressed by UK policy"
e.g., criticism of a "[lack] of emphasis of energy conservation by reducing over-illumination, especially in commercial buildings."
No source is provided for this criticism. To give another example:
"The Energy Challenge: The Energy Review Report 2006
In the event, the Energy Review Report 2006 came out as a broader and more balanced document than critics (in advance) had expected."
No source is provided to substantiate this statement. Enescot (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate tone/style 

message: The British government hasn't got an energy policy. Its only policy is to leave everything to the private sector. As the private sector will do what's best for the private sector, not what's best for the country, we can expect prices to go on rising. Biscuittin (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an example. Both producers and industrial consumers are private sector. The government seems to have no involvement at all. . Biscuittin (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  No energy policy 

message: Sulfur has been the correct spelling of the element in the UK for a very long time. The RSC has endorsed it since 1992 and here on Wikipedia we have the policy WP:ALUM which mandates this spelling on chemistry-related articles, which clearly this usage is. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sulphur is generally accepted as the British English spelling, including by most scientific journals. This is also not a chemistry related article; the chemistry is auxiliary to the point, which is energy policy. 2A00:23C4:D12B:AB01:CC24:D98B:D431:C816 (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of "sulfur" 

message: but I don't have time to do it. Anybody? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs severe pruning and updating