Category talk:Renewable energy

Opening comment

Someone placed a whole bunch of different turbines in this cat -- I think that's wrong, and a mis-categorization, but just don't feel like stepping on toes with regards to this ... linas 05:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Categorization of renewable energy

This discussion is in relation the structure of the renewable energy category. This discussion is open and has not reached consensus, your comments are welcome. Please feel free to add points or discuss them, please sign each point or comment.

• At present the category encompasses many topics not directly related to energy but nevertheless important to this field. These topics should be included in this category yet distinguished as topics unrelated to renewable energy generation. GG (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Organizations involved in renewable energy should all be a member of 'Renewable energy organizations', they should also be listed under their relevant categories (ie, photovoltaics, renewable energy government bodies, renewable energy NGOs) each of these categories should be listed as sub categories of 'Renewable energy organizations'. Any further categorisation of of organizations should be avoided and lists created instead. Lists of organizations should be listed under the relevant category, 'Renewable energy organizations' and 'Lists related to renewable energy'.
• Historically renewable energy have realised mainstream acceptance through two paths

1. Government sponsorship. New renewables are too costly for market acceptance in free markets the government support of this industry is the driving force behind recent growth and should be acknowledged in a category named "Renewable energy policy". GG (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Markets Renewable energy markets are one tool employed by governments to increase the rate of deployment of this technology but should also include 'Renewable energy economics' and 'Renewable energy commercialisation'. GG (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Community attitudes Acceptance by the community is both the main driver behind recent growth and also the main barrier to some technologies (ie, wind) this is an important topic and should be listed under 'Renewable energy in the community'. GG (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Prior to deployment in industrialised countries renewables were used in niche markets where mainstream energies were not suited, such as space, remote regions and in developing countries. GG (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Space Photovoltaics have traditional been the only technology suited to space and as such requires its own section under the 'Photovoltaics' category. GG (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Remote regions Only some technologies are useful in remote regions, specifically wind, photovoltaics, solar thermal, microhydro, bioenergy (wood) categories on these technologies should incorporate their use in remote regions and as such a category name "Renewable energy in remote regions" should not be used. GG (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Developing countries is a major field of study and international aid organisations are the oldest customers of the renewable energy industry. This certainly requires its own category and should be categorised under 'Renewable energy' or 'Renewable energy policy'. GG (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Projects related to renewable energy should be listed under 'Renewable energy projects' and their relevant category (ie, 'Solar energy projects' not 'Photovoltaics projects', 'Water energy projects' not 'Wavepower projects', this distinction is important as in many instances there is some synergy between technologies). Lists should be created in place of categories for topics such as 'Wind farms in the UK'. GG (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Technology categorisation should follow this structure:

• Solar energy

• Photovoltaics

• Photovoltaics in space
• Photovoltaics organizations
• Water pumping

• Solar energy projects
• Solar thermal
• Solar towers
• Solar energy science (sunpath, irradiation, etc)
• Solar architecture
• Solar energy standards
• Solar desalination and disinfection
• Solar powered vehicles
• Solar concentrators
• Solar tracking systems
• Solar lighting

• Wind energy
• Bioenergy
• Water energy

• Tidal energy
• Hydropower
• Wave energy

• Geothermal energy
• Energy efficiency
• Demand management (managing demand vs periodic supply of renewables)

• Distributed network

• Renewable storage technologies

• Hydrogen

• Fuel cells

• Power conditioning equipment

• Other points to make are:

• Possible merger of 'Renewable energy' and 'Alternative energy' and 'Green energy' (strictly speaking not correct, but in terms of searching)

Comment: In general, I support this structure. Just few remarks:

• I don't know if I understand correctly your proposal "Lists should be created in place of categories for topics such as 'Wind farms in the UK'". Does it mean you propose to remove country-based categories for wind farms, hydroelectric power stations etc? If so, I have to oppose this proposal. Current matrix structure of countries and technologies allows to create series and multiple hierarchies for categorization (this discussion about coal-fired power station series explains this more detailed). So, my point is, that these project are not only about technology—these are also power generation units (power stations) and needs their owns categorization based on this.
• Why "Water pumping" is under "Photovoltaics"? If it means power storage/production technologies (e.g. water pumping storage plants), it should be under "Water energy" as a separate subcategory or as a part of "Hydropower".
• Maybe no need to create subcategories for the "Photovoltaics"? Beagel (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• A few comments. What exactly is the difference between 'Renewable energy', 'Alternative energy' and 'Green energy'? What exactly is alternative energy? Categories can not be ambiguous. A better organization is needed and this proposal is a start. As a general point, major categories should have a lead article so 'water power' should be replaced with hydro power. Storage technologies work for both renewable and non renewable sources (a battery is good for hydro electricity and solar and anything else that produces electricity). Placing 'water pumping' under solar is indicative of an underlying problem with the proposed organization. Wind works as well for this as does the flow of water. Bottom line, this is a start with a lot of work to do. I think trying to do all of this in one pass will make reaching a decision difficult. I'm not sure how to approach this, but maybe some general guidelines and then a few clearly defined top level cats and then work to fill in each. Remember the existing articles are going to drive the categories. Also remember that in the end if some categories need to be renamed, so be it. Changing the parent and child relations is also easy to do. As long as it is done with some forethought. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Todays Las Vegas Review-Journal included a statement that said renewable resources are solar, wind, and geothermal. Another view on what renewable should cover. Notice that hydro is missing. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Coming at this from a business angle: I'm not sure it's necessary to put every organisation in a 'Renewable energy organizations' category if a more specific one should/does exist (for example, companies should go in a 'Renewable energy companies' sub-category instead). Sub-categories have to exist to distinguish between types of organisation. Also, somewhat wary of the statement "any further categorisation of organizations should be avoided and lists created instead" - more detailed categorisation can be useful. To clarify, can you give an indication of the "lowest level" of category that you feel should be applied, for example, to Vestas, Iberdrola Renovables and SolarWorld (i.e. would you propose categories like Category:Wind turbine manufacturers remain)? Gr1st (talk) 09:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

General comments. When in doubt, it is useful to go back to what the International Energy Agency says about renewables:

"Renewable energy is derived from natural processes that are replenished constantly. In its various forms, it derives directly from the sun, or from heat generated deep within the earth. Included in the definition is electricity and heat generated from solar, wind, ocean, hydropower, biomass, geothermal resources, and biofuels and hydrogen derived from renewable resources." [1]

Note that energy efficiency and demand management are not included in the IEA definition of renewables.

I agree that many non-technical aspects of renewables also need to be included in the Renewable energy category and its sub-categories. These aspects are covered in articles such as Renewable energy commercialization, Renewable energy industry, and Renewable energy policy.

Also, I think Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates may provide some general guidance. And in particular, as Beagel has suggested above, categories, lists, and navigational templates should not be considered to be in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, with each approach complementing the others. Johnfos (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Looks fine to me (apart from the earlier mentioned Water pumping under Photovoltaics). Crowsnest (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Hot rocks, should be added as a subcatergory to Geothermal.

Water pumping is a specialised aspect of Photovoltaics with innovative devices to improve efficiency only relating to solar. Jagra (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In this case, how do you classify pumped-storage plant? And by the rules, the main article for the Water pumping category should be the Water pumping, which is probably not what you mean. I think there is no need for further split of Photovoltaics category.Beagel (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yours probably is Water energy sub catergory pumped storage? and is pumped-storage a 'renewable energy'? or energy storage. The one I have in mind is Solar-powered pump but is this not Solar energy subcatergory water pumping? By the way the linked article here is badly in need of improvement, as it makes no mention of innovations I am aware of that can increase amount of water pumped by a solar installation up to 30% each day. Solar water pumping in third world countries can take precedence over other energy projects, so not easily dismissed as to importance. Jagra (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Vegaswikian's comment that this is a good start is probably correct. I'm not too sure what the difference between Renewable/Green/Alternative is, they should be merged. I am happy to retract the comments on the categorization of renewable energy companies and organizations and leave them to follow the synergistic hierarchy theme. Strictly speaking energy efficiency and energy storage are not renewable energies but they are relevant and I would like to see them included, this of course is open for discussion. I have reservations about lumping all bioenergies into one category some distinction needs to be drawn but I am also hesitant to list biodiesel, ethanol, etc in the main category. Can we agree on the Level 1 category?

• Renewable energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Photovoltaics
  • Solar thermal
  • Wind energy
  • Hydropower
  • Geothermal
  • Tidal energy
  • Wave energy
  • Fuel cells
  • Energy efficiency
  • Renewable energy organizations
  • Renewable energy policy

GG (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think deciding on a basic structure is a good idea. From clicking around the renewable energy category I have the following suggestions. Regarding energy efficiency being included in renewable energy, I think it would be more appropriate to not include it in the category but rather link to it on the category page (under a "See Also" section?). In addition, there is already a well-established energy conservation category which should be used instead of energy efficiency. I think the current grouping of solar energy into one category (including solar thermal) is more appropriate as well--with a solar thermal category inside of solar energy. At the moment, there are very few articles on tidal and wave energy (less than 10 combined that I found) which might not warrant their own separate main categories. A category addressing renewable infrastructure that would include storage, demand management, and other things (like some of the items found in category:renewable energy in the community) would be valuable as well. Muffinon (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If Photovoltaics and solar thermal are to be sub to Solar energy, then hydropower, wave energy and tidal energy should still be sub to Water energy? If energy storage is to be included then maybe a Renewable energy storage is also needed?, also as hydrogen can not only fuel, fuel cells but also directly vehicles, then Hydrogen power also needs to be before fuel cell. Some definitions need to agreed before Renewable/Green/ Alternative is proposed for merger. Jagra (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a link to Energy Efficiency is far more appropriate. Regarding the subcategorization of solar energy and water energy:

• Water energy includes varied topics. The obvious ones Hydro, Tidal and Wave might suit but the category I originally created was marked for deletion and all are to be merged into Hydropower (not so sure about this ??). But in addition there are also articles on temperature differences between surface and deep water which is used for air conditioning among other things, this almost borders on geothermal energy. Another one is using salt differential between surface and deep water to create electrical current.
• There are a few shared themes between PV and solar thermal (concentration, sun tracking, similar physics, etc). This perhaps warrants the original categorisation scheme but there have been voices of opposition both to solar energy and water energy. Probably requires further debate. GG (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge: I also just found Category:Sustainable energy. Some definitions do need to be drawn, technically speaking:

• Renewable energy is energy from a renewable source.
• Green energy has a 'green' image.
• Alternative energy is not a mainstream energy source.
• Sustainable energy meets the needs of today without compromising the needs of tomorrow.

I have had a look into each of these categories and the vast majority of content is concerning Renewable energies. These renewable energies are not necessarily Green (ie, methane, diesel) and not necessarily Alternative (ie, PV and wind is pretty common in Germany and Denmark). Sustainable (almost) means Renewable so where do we draw the line? The fact that there a four categories of the same thing really implies that people are using these terms interchangeably. GG (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Because an energy is renewable does not mean it is not polluting, such as burning plantation timber! Green energy implies non-polluting. As you point out Alternative yesterday is becoming mainstream today, but is defined as non-fossil fuel, again this does not define it as non-polluting. Sustainable does approach Renewable, in the sense that both accept polluting sources, however sustainable also accepts nuclear, which is not a renewable. As a result I cannot see how these can be merged, there are significant technical and philosophical differences. Yes there are commonalities but you cannot disregard the differences.
• Not Merge To understand what may seem semantic differences we need to consider the definitions of the proponents.

To begin with Renewable energy effectively uses natural resources such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides and geothermal heat, which may be naturally replenished. Renewable energy technologies range from solar power, wind power, hydroelectricity/micro hydro, biomass and biofuels for transportation.

In 2006, about 18% of global final energy consumption came from renewables, with 13% coming from traditional biomass, such as wood-burning.

(In other words at the moment considerably polluting)

This is the definition of Green energy from its page; Several working definitions used for green energy. These include:

• An alternate term for renewable energy. (I don't think so !)
• Energy generated from sources which do not produce pollutants (e.g. solar, wind and wave energies).
• Energy generated from sources which are considered environmentally friendly (e.g. hydro (water), solar (sun), biomass (landfill) or wind).
• Energy generated from sources which produce low amounts of pollution.
• Energy that is produced and used in ways that produce relatively less environmental impacts.

This is the definition of Alternative energy from its page; Alternative energy is a term used for an energy source that is an alternative to using fossil fuels. Generally, it indicates energies that are non-traditional and have low environmental impact. The term alternative is used to contrast with fossil fuels according to some sources. By most definitions alternative energy doesn't harm the environment, a distinction which separates it from renewable energy which may or may not have significant environmental impact.

Where as Sustainable energy; is the provision of energy such that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. A broader interpretation may allow inclusion of fossil fuels and nuclear fission as transitional sources while technology develops, as long as new sources are developed for future generations to use. A narrower interpretation includes only energy sources which are not expected to be depleted in a timeframe relevant to the human race.

Sustainable energy sources are most often regarded as including all renewable sources, such as biofuels, solar power, wind power, wave power, geothermal power and tidal power. It usually also includes technologies that improve energy efficiency. Conventional nuclear power and fusion power may be included, but they are controversial politically due to concerns about waste disposal and the risks of disaster due to accident, terrorism, or natural disaster.

This sets sustainable energy apart from other renewable energy terminology such as alternative energy and green energy, by focusing on the ability of an energy source to continue providing energy. Sustainable energy can produce some pollution of the environment, as long as it is not sufficient to prohibit heavy use of the source for an indefinite amount of time.

I guess to sum up I would say;

The non-pollting elements of Green energy are included in Alternative energy, Renewable energy and Sustainable energy.

The elements of Alternative energy are included in Renewable energy and Sustainable energy.

The elements of Renewable energy are included in Sustainable Energy which also permits Nuclear and fossile fuels. Jagra (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Bioenergy CO2 is released in the combustion of biofuels but only because the CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere during plant growth, over the life of the fuel the energy is CO2 neutral or CO2 negative and for this reason is regarded by many as non-polluting (this doesn't mean it has a green image). Nuclear is not renewable and I doubt that there are uranium deposits to last for all human existence. If we want to get very technical about this solar, wind, tidal and geothermal have some negative environmental impacts too, they are only used as the positive impacts outweigh the negative. I think we are getting tied up on a non-issue here to me these categories are being filled with articles which are not relevant to their respective category and people are (perhaps unwittingly) using the improper categorisation and search terms. To me nobody is going to sit and think "wow, do I want to search for renewable, alternative or green? well I suppose that bioenergy is renewable but it does emit CO2, then again the IEA did define it as a renewable resource...." nobody is going to have this discussion with themselves, particularly if they came to wikipedia to find the answer. I think it would be safe to say that it has occured in the past that the terms have been confused and it will probably happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GGByte (talk • contribs) 08:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I agree the likelyhood for confusion, so maybe what is needed is an umberalla article that compares and contrasts, to which the others are retained as sub, rather than merge and confuse further! This is the purpose of an encyclopedia, to clarify. But what to call the Article any ideas? how about for starters, Climate change energies?

Regarding biofuel Co2 cycle, it is a bit of an academic argument, for global warming will alter rainfall and maybe the trees in any given area will not magically regrow again! Jagra (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Generation

I suggest create the category:renewable electricity generation. --Mac (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)