Talk:Renewable energy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Proposed Merge with Green energy

If the terms are not synonymous (and they appear to be in many circumstances), then they are close enough to warrant sharing an article. It seems Green energy should probably be merged with Renewable energy, as the latter is the more popular search term. Please also refer to the related discussions at the Green energy talk page. --Xaliqen (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not ready to make support or oppose this yet, but I do want to lay out some issues as I see them. First, I think you mean that "green energy" has less search engine hits... not that it is a less popular search term. I notice that the comment you are refering to says that "green energy" has only 12,000,000 hits... which sounds like a lot to me. The 9000+ scholar hits"green+energy"&btnG=Search and 29000 news hits"green+energy"&ie=UTF-8 suggests that there is plenty to work with. See also: International Journal of Green Energy

Without really digging too hard into the subject, I imagine the big difference between the concepts could be framed as "sustainable vs. non-polluting". The issues and debates are related, but not completely overlapping, and just because one or the other article could be improved does not mean that it should not exist. I think that having a section in 'Renewable energy' about non-polluting but non-sustainable energy is cumbersome. Thoughts? NJGW (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Rather than interpreting the terms on their own, part of my suggestion was looking at whether they are used relatively interchangeably in speech and writing. In many instances, it appears as though the terms are used interchangeably. If one refers to "green" energy as something entirely distinct from "renewable" energy, then (I would argue) this is when the debate for maintaining an explanation of "green" energy becomes relevant. Personally, I don't think a section on the "green" debate in renewable energy would have to be cumbersome. For instance, a paragraph would suffice for explaining that there is controversy related to certain types of renewable energy due to substantial damage to the environment and, thus, lack of appropriate "green" sensibility. In other words, the section would explain that pretty much all "green" energy must be renewable, but not all renewable energy is sufficiently "green," according to certain groups/individuals. The explanation as to why these types of energy production are controversial should probably be left to the relevant articles about (for instance) geothermal power, since the intricacies of the argument can best be explained in that context. These are the thoughts that were most present behind my initial suggestion for the merge. --Xaliqen (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to the suggestion that I intended to quote the previous debate regarding search hits versus searches, that is correct. This was merely referring to my opinion that it would be more appropriate for green energy to merge into renewable energy due to the latter's popularity, rather than renewable merging into green. Please see the following reference for comparative popularity in searches.[1] --Xaliqen (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge

We can't possibly think of merging anything with Renewable energy because the article is already way too long. We should be looking to split articles off from this. Johnfos (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article could use some careful pruning. I support the merge on the basis of overlap as mentioned above. --Xaliqen (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• oppose merge Not all renewable energy is green... not all green energy is renewable. This is an old discussion and has been closed in the past. Still no consensus. Time to close it again. NJGW (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Where has the discussion been closed in the past? I looked through the archives, and I see no previous references to a proposed merge of the two articles. Why should discussion be closed after only a few days? Most merge suggestions stay up for quite a bit longer, so that a larger sample of the community can weigh in. --Xaliqen (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion you mention in the above section is from November 2007. I think it's been enough time. NJGW (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion referred to is merely a discussion and not a merge proposal with appropriate tags that were placed in the article. I looked through the article changes for the period of November 2007 and did not notice any merge proposal tags placed in the article. Since this is the first formal merge proposal viewable to wikipedians within the article itself, it seems prudent to leave the tag in place until a larger portion of the community weighs in on the issue or a time-period commensurate with an ample opportunity to weigh-in has passed. I would contend that a few days does not provide this ample opportunity for the broader community. --Xaliqen (talk) 07:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The tag is formal, but not required. The proposal was made in November 2007 and the silence of support was deafening. You put a tag up 9 days ago, not "a few". Would you have us wait another year? NJGW (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we're just going to disagree here. The proposal/discussion item mentioned from November 2007 just looks like a comment to me. No one supported or opposed this comment, because it was just a comment. My tag was taken down after less than a week, and this is the only way someone who does not visit the talk page knows a debate is ongoing. How can you seek consensus from the broader community if you take the tags down that would bring the issue to their awareness in the first place? You're not going to convince me that taking the tags down (especially by people involved in the discussion) is justified in this instance. Nevertheless, I'm not going to go back and forth on this thing, because I've stated my case. If the Green energy article merges with the Renewable energy article at some point, and I am almost certain that it will, I don't need to be a part of the process. I certainly don't feel any need to go out of my way to convince everyone that the merge should happen in the next five minutes if it's already inevitable in the next ten years. Rather, I was merely proposing the merge to the community as a way of staying ahead of the game. --Xaliqen (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Another point to consider is that the people who understand this topic best are the ones who have already been through the talk pages, and been primary editors of the two pages... and they have not been in favor of a merge. It's unfortunate that you feel that a merge is predestined, especially when the two topics are merely related and not the same thing, and given the excellent point by Johnfos/Sunray that the resulting merged article would be unwieldy and confusing to readers. NJGW (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I certainly understand that the ones most attached to the aforementioned topic are those who have stuck around and edited the longest. I fail to see, however, how this editing grants some level of expertise by default. I also fail to see how the two topics are not the same thing solely on the basis of your declaration. On the contrary, all of the media I've seen indicates that the terms are used interchangeably. Unless we are to ignore how terms are used in popular discourse and make up our own definitions as they suit ourselves, I fail to see how the terms are provably different. Nevertheless, as I mentioned previously, time will undoubtedly settle the argument and I feel no need to be a part of said solution. --Xaliqen (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure no one you have been engaged with on this talk page is here because we are attached to the term "green energy". Claiming that much is assuming bad faith and a serious accusation, so I advise you not to do so. It would be better if we all assume that each of us is interested in improving all the articles on Wikipedia. If you have sources which back up your position, now would be a good time to share them with us. In either case, this particular debate is over, and I will archive it in 2 days (if no one else does so first). NJGW (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I never accused anyone of acting in bad faith, nor did I assume anyone is acting in bad faith. I apologize if you received that impression, though I do not appreciate your own accusation that I made such an assumption in the first place. I am sorry you feel the need to archive this discussion while I feel it is still highly relevant, but I'm not going to try to change your mind either. As for sources regarding "green" and "renewable" energy being used interchangeably, here are but a few:[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] If you would also like to provide sources in support of your position, I am sure this would help greatly in future resolutions of similar disputations. Thank you once again. --Xaliqen (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) The concepts do overlap, and so the press does use them together in articles... that has never been debated and is thus a straw man/red herring; and we are not arguing that. Where is the source which explicitly states these are the same? There are now and have been two sources at Green energy which describe Renewable E. as a subset of Green E. Once again, you can have green (non-polluting) without renewable (nature makes more in a reasonable time-frame). I fail to understand your confusion. NJGW (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My position is that the terms are used interchangeably and are, therefore, synonymous in terms of usage. I believe the above articles clearly show how the the terms are used both synonymously and interchangeably, as, indeed, one term is often substituted for the other mid-way through a given article. I think the more important issue is substantiating the argument that the terms are different and used differently. Therefore, the question I would ask is: "Where is the article that substantiates the claims that the terms are different and used differently?" I believe the above-referenced articles are more than enough to substantiate my claim that the terms are widely used both synonymously and interchangeably. --Xaliqen (talk) 07:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess that means you didn't read my previous post in which I preemptively answered that very question. Your suggestion is called novel synthesis. If you have no new points to make then I will archive this thread tomorrow. NJGW (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You have yet to present articles to substantiate your claims. My claims are substantiated in the articles I presented. Isn't it normal to archive a conversation after a significant amount of time has passed and not on the day the conversation took place? What is the justification you present for archiving the discussion so quickly? Furthermore, is it not appropriate to present the articles that substantiate your claims in order to justify your position on the issue? --Xaliqen (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge: As Johnfos has mentioned, the "Renewable energy" article is already way too long. Even if it were pared down, it really does not need a complicated explanation added to it about the differences between renewable energy and green energy. Surely those who care to ponder the matter could figure it out for themselves. Moreover, if the two were merged, would green energy become a redirect? That would imply that they are the same thing - and they are not. Sunray (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support merge

• support merge There is a large degree of overlap and the terms appear to be used relatively interchangeably. I won't go on at length, as I've already done so above and on the green energy talk page.--Xaliqen (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Renewable energy portal

I suggest create Portal:Renewable energy. --Nopetro (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This article may be worth referencing as it shows that Europe could have a 70% wind energy, 100% renewable power supply using hvdc super grids and no intermittency.

http://www.claverton-energy.com/green-grid-article-in-new-scientist-by-david-strahan-the-oil-drum-on-hvdc-supergrids.htmlBewislaker (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

But link to the actual article, instead of the summary.[13] 199.125.109.56 (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Some contradictions

Two pieces of data do not add up. At the top it says that current use of hydro outweighs biomass by around 2 times. But then in one of the tables it is described that hydro only produces 9 EJ while biomass produces 50. Clearly something is wrong, even from a layman's perspective all you hear about these days are big hydro being built, and definitely not biomass.

Source 28: http://www.undp.org/energy/weaover2004.htm Table 7 also shows hydro output heavily outweighing biomass. Now I didn't do the conversion between kW.hr and EJ, but it is very clear that the "current use" table is very wrong.

The page is semiprotected. Can someone change this? Cheers 125.238.84.154 (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem, as I understand it, is that while traditional biomass provides a large proportion of the energy consumed in developing countries (and hence worldwide), measuring traditional biomass usage is very hard. (See endnotes 1 and 2 in the cited Renewables 2007 Global Status Report for some details and further sources.) New renewables are dominated by hydro, as you suggest, and as laid out in the pie chart File:Ren2006.png near the top of the article. Our article could (and probably should) be clearer about the distinction, but it is overly simplistic to insist that either set of figures is "very wrong". -- Avenue (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Bias?

Statements in the article about the vast amount of renewable energy available from the sun are misleading in my view and need to be contextualised. There are limits to our ability to harness the total figure, which includes energy which never reaches the Earth's surface. In addition to this is the efficiency with which the energy from the sun is converted into sources that can theoretically be harnessed. After that are the efficiencies of the systems we can create to harness the energy. Figures relating to biomass etc do not address the issue of crops for food or of the accessibility or suitabilit of the land for the crops. Fuel crops are already impacting on food resources as crops for fuel can get higher prices than those for food.

LookingGlass (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to investigate reliable sources of information on this subject? The last time this was attempted, this was the obstacle to further forward progress in this area. --Skyemoor (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ocean Thermal Energy

An editor is insisting on adding this red link to the first sentence of the lead, and I'm wondering why. We can't mention everyone's favorite technology in the lead. Johnfos (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I see at least 5 kinds of ocean energy at wikipedia... and no reason this particular one should be in the lead. By the way, the real link is ocean thermal energy conversion. NJGW (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for that... Johnfos (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want any particular technology in the lead. The article is very poorly organized. The first para itself contains statistical data, and the same words like solar, wind are being repeated again and again. The Contents list is placed after a long history. The pie-chart legend is blurred (what do we do with the pies alone?).Vayalir (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What about adding shortcut to Renewable Energy Database (www.re-database.com)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.64.130.227 (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Can Be Used?

Open the article->Menubar->Edit->Find on This page-> Type 'can' See how many times the word "can" is used.

It looks like the article is advising/training/instructing readers. Can we label this as how-to article...

I feel that a more better way of presenting fact woulb be like "Wind energy is used...." instead of winf "Wind energy 'can' be used".

I think there are so many 'can's because of copy-pasting....Reply here

Vayalir (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that sourced examples of "IS used" are better than "CAN/COULD be used", but good (non-advertising) sources that discuss possible future applications or under-utilized types of installations are also interesting. NJGW (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is only if can/could were used for "futuristic" things. But it is being used for "things" which are already there.Vayalir (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

New section ?

Nowhere in the article is there any mentioning of energy carriers (see Energy_storage. Perhaps a section can be made -Conversion and storage of energy- It should be mentioned that energy carriers include Hydrogen, Liquid nitrogen, compressed air, oxyhydrogen, battery and others which can be used to power vehicles, ...

Also, perhaps organic substrate can be added as another energy source, as they can be inmediatelly transformed to hydrogen, using Fermentative_hydrogen_production

Look into it and add to article if all agree KVDP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.136.159 (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Already implemented and improved section myself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by KVDP (talk • contribs) 09:35, 3 May 2009 KVDP (UTC)

header

The header states:

Wind power is growing at the rate of 30 percent annually, with a worldwide installed capacity of over 100 GW,[3] and is widely used in several European countries and the United States.[4] The manufacturing output of the photovoltaics industry reached more than 2,000 MW in 2006,[5] and photovoltaic (PV) power stations are particularly popular in Germany and Spain.[6] Solar thermal power stations operate in the USA and Spain, and the largest of these is the 354 MW SEGS power plant in the Mojave Desert.[7]. The world's largest geothermal power installation is The Geysers in California, with a rated capacity of 750 MW.[8] Brazil has one of the largest renewable energy programs in the world, involving production of ethanol fuel from sugar cane, and ethanol now provides 18 percent of the country's automotive fuel.[9] Ethanol fuel is also widely available in the USA.

While there are many large-scale renewable energy projects and production, renewable technologies are also suited to small off-grid applications, sometimes in rural and remote areas, where energy is often crucial in human development.[10] Kenya has the world's highest household solar ownership rate with roughly 30,000 small (20–100 watt) solar power systems sold per year.[11]

Some renewable energy technologies are criticised for being intermittent or unsightly, yet the market is growing for many forms of renewable energy. Climate change concerns coupled with high oil prices, peak oil and increasing government support are driving increasing renewable energy legislation, incentives and commercialization.[12] New government spending, regulation, and policies should help the industry weather the 2009 economic crisis better than many other sectors.[13]

This section should be moved to renewable energy commercialisation. The pie-chart should be scaled to 250px, the renewable energy column should be moved under pie chart.

renewable energy commercialisation should be summarized. Also remove the silly "largest solar plant"-stuff, what does this add to the article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by KVDP (talk • contribs) 09:35, 3 May 2009 KVDP (UTC)

moved section around in the article—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.188.21 (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Include Nuclear

Nuclear power should be included in this category. Everything else in this category is just a derivative of the Sun's nuclear power. So these are no more renewable than nuclear power itself.129.93.159.120 (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Delphi234 (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

For those who don't understand why "No" is enough of an answer: 129.93.159.120's comment is symantic nonsense which has not been removed because we are wp:AGFing that they were actually serious. Also, they haven't been back to ask for clarification so we assume "No" got the message accross. The fusion happening in the sun is not considered "nuclear power" by any source we could use. Nuclear power is created through radioactive materials which have a limited half-life and supply, thus they are not renewable. NJGW (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I Agree. Foclear (FOssil and nuCLEAR) energies are not renewables. --Nopetro (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Calling the comment symantic nonsense doesn't sound like wp:AGFing. 'No' is not enough of an answer, but the issue should first be addressed in its respective section. And the sun's energy is nuclear... I'm confused how someone could maintain anything else. Solar (or any energy source) is only considered renewable in the context of using here on Earth in present day. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not nuclear should be included, but the article seemed very one-sided and did not clearly present the arguments that favor its inclusion. Moreover, the section on nuclear power was actually a misplaced anti-nuclear power rant, wandering well outside the question of renewablity in order to state negatives about nuclear energy.Chuxton (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

All we do in the relevant section is quote the balance of relevant, available and reliable sources. The existing wording was arrived at in the midst of considerable debate to find consensus (see talk archives). If anyone has a new suitable source that describes successful a fusion-powered electricity generating station on earth, or that tells us of a government that is including nuclear power stations as part of its actual renewable energy program, please take the time to quote it here first, before altering the careful consensus wording. --Nigelj (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, this article from a major UK newspaper this week still seems to be describing nuclear and renewable energy sources as alternatives, rather than aspects of the same thing, so it seems we have it about right in the article. --Nigelj (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My understanding, after a long debate, is that the exclusion of Nuclear is an arbitrary part of renewable by most definitions. Whether Nuclear is good or bad, or whether burning manure inside for cooking with the health problems of smoke is good or bad, has nothing with whether they are considered renewable. By the way, didn't there used to be a criticism section that mentioned indoor air pollution? Paul Studier (talk) 03:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear energy is an alternative energy source, but not renewable. The nuclear energy present in the sun is certainly renewable, but we receive it as solar energy and solar conerted to other forms like wind, water, etc... On earth, nuclear energy refers to the energy generated from radioactive minerals obtained from the nuclear mines which are exhaustible and cannot be considered renewable (Note that it is not non-renewable because of the half-life as mentioned by some user in preceeding text). Vayalir (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that the word alternative itself has a long tradition of a specific meaning in this area. In that sense, nuclear power generation is neither an alternative technology, nor a source of alternative energy. --Nigelj (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Breeder reactors are certainly a renewable energy source. Rlsheehan (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No Vayalir (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Exclude large hydropower

It's clear that both nuclear and large hydro have been getting quietly nudged out of any definition of renewable energy by certain groups. They are both deserving of the same treatment in this article. It's no secret that the article is POV, but we can at least have a classification in the article of "might or might not be included". As the article currently stands, there's little indication that there isn't a clear line between included and not included. Any reader can see how that shouldn't be. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I keep coming back to what the International Energy Agency says, as it is a very authoritative source:

"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." (see Renewable energy... into the mainstream p. 9.)

If we look at the "2004 Fuel Shares of World Total Primary Energy Supply" data from IEA, the situation very clear, where large hydro is included in the renewable energy breakdown, and nuclear is excluded. (see Renewables in global energy supply: An IEA facts sheet, p. 3.) Johnfos (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you run away to a semantic definition now? As wikipedians, we have different ways of determining if something is 'included' in the list of renewable energy, one is by rule with some definition (that no one will ever agree on), and the other is by using what some authority lists as renewable (which also no one will agree on). The rationale behind the harsh non-inclusionist attitude in nuclear's strategically and provocatively titled section is that it's not included in any legal definition of renewables.

If you need an example of large hydro getting nudged out, look no further than the section Growth of renewables in this very article. Yet at the same time, the article fails to recognize any fuzzy area in the inclusion of power sources into the definition. I know that you're an educated editor, do you really need me to point out examples of large hydro NOT being included?

Generally, my impression of the current state of affairs is that large hydro is sometimes omitted, while nuclear is sometimes included. You know that there are established organizations that support this, as in, established environmental groups asking for large hydro to be excluded as well as valid representatives in government asking for nuclear to be included. The issue is that the article is far from fairly representing this and has vultures swarming around it to prevent that from happening. So why are you still trying to argue that nuclear isn't renewable - that's completely and utterly missing the point. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear power as renewable energy is now a separate article ready for expansion, which is summarised and linked here per WP:SS.

The way I see the hydro issue is that "large hydro" is sometimes separated from "new renewables" but both are still within the definition of renewable energy. Johnfos (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the split. I've sure there's already enough content that has previously been deleted to form a stable form of the new article. I've edited the article to reflect what I had in mind. There needs to be a valid treatment of inclusion controversies or what have you. I think we can all agree on that. I tried to set a high standard for handling these with my wording for hydro and geothermal. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Request to add magnet renewable energy to renewable energy page.

(again, removing text of deleted article)

Georgeperez (talk · contribs) would like to add information on "magnet renewable energy". His article on this topic has been speedy deleted several times in the past 24 hours. Does this technology even exist? There were no sources given by George. I'll have a look for independent sources. NJGW (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I figured it out. It's a perpetual motion issue.[14] NJGW (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What sort of information do you need? I showed you how to make the technology. Why must you continue to delete my information? Could you not ask me if this information is true? I'm putting it up one more time, this is actual renewable energy. If you could stop deleting my post, I would greatly appreciate it. If you need more information about this technology you can visit http:// www.novarenewable.webs.com or http:// www.novaalternative.webs.com to view information about the company that creates this new renewable energy. What else do you need from me?

What else can I add? This is a perfectly clear example, is it not? It is not fair that you continue to delete my posts. Who do you work for? I have an environment to save. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeperez (talk • contribs) 02:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"What else can I add?" You can provide a wp:RS source that says this technology exists. The websites of companies trying to sell perpetual motion devices are not enough. NJGW (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Magnet renewable energy sounds interesting and would be nice to add here. But, can u please tell what is the ultimate source of that energy? Because all other energies like wind, hydel, etc. have ultimate source as sun. All of these use magnets and the "motor-generator" Faraday's electromagnetic induction principle for converting mechanical energy to electrical energy.

If are you trying to add a new technology to the generator model, it shouldn't be here.

If it is a new energy, we can add it here. Mention the ultimate source: Whether it is also the sun or whether it is going to drain on earths rotation? But, please provide accesible sources for your claim. It is not even necessary the technology has been implemented. Even theoritical citations are enough (we can add it as Under Experimentation). We need citations, not advertising! Vayalir (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The history section of the discussions seems to have plenty of proof that the renewable energy exists. I noticed many people are attempting to cover this part up. Watch as the same people attempt to delete what I just wrote and these links. --144.89.85.207 (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This user constantly tries to insert links to a company that supposedly sells a perpetual motion machine. No clue if they actually deliver anything, or are just trying to gather some venture capital for some magical technology. Best to ignore until they manage to come up with actual links. NJGW (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Rearranging

I am planning to move the 2006 pie chart statistics with its supporting text below and "Main renewable technologies para" at the introduction. If anyone has objection, please post here Vayalir (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Anyone supporting this idea also reply hereVayalir (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I say drop the exploded pie chart completely. -- Avenue (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Pie chart looks bad because the legends are blurred. Anyway it would be nice if someone could get 2008/9 statistics and a good inroduction to renewable energy instead of thoe statistics. The statistics with pie chart can remain in middle, but not at the introVayalir (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Can the pie chart be made smaller and become a second schematic. First one should be comparisation between fossil fuels and renewable power— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.169.143 (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on that for the next version, as soon as new data is available. The percentage of energy from renewable is still quite low. In the meantime I would just suggest using it as a thumb, so that if anyone wants to read it they can click on it. Delphi234 (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Blacklight Power

Is Blacklight Power a renewable source of energy, if so add to article. Greenpeace has reported that power stations may be build with this so I guess ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.188.21 (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's just Cold fusion-2. [15] --Nigelj (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Shematic

At present, there are 2 schematics ; 1 of renewable energy and their make-eup 1 of renewable energy and how much it accounts for in world energy production perhaps that they can be combined into 1 schematic (with same world figures; distinction made between variable and invariable power sources for the renewables; biomass seperate) A guideline is found at following page: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/prelim_trends/rea_prereport.html (note that this one is only for the US; needs figures for entire world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.179.195 (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Message from my Talk page

I received this message on my Talk page, and am posting here for discussion... Johnfos (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you removed my edits at renewable energy. I restored the article for the moment, but I accept to put in some changes. You are correct that the energy storage section (if regarded as such; actually its about energy production paring aswell as storage) is perhaps a bit too large there, yet it is vital for anyone wishing to know more about renewable energy and make use of it later-on. Project-designers too read wikipedia articles and this section would help them allot. Also, the information in the section is still nowhere to be found at wikipedia. A possible solution could be to name it "Using renewable energy" or "Paring renewable energy production to demand". If this is unsufficient, I would also agree to reduce it in size and put the entire text at a different article, Paring renewable energy production to consumption.

The pie chart is needed to signify that renewable energy is still a small part of global energy production (hereby placing renewble energy in context on regards to world energy production), and also shows hydropower seperatly (a key invariable power source). This helps the section on energy storage by explaining that -what the environment is concerned- greening of fossil fuel plants is quicker. Offcourse this article is about renewable energy, but enironmentalists will direct to this page nonetheless (a "green power"-article doesn't exist at wikipedia).

The mentioning of nuclear power in the section is vital as nuclear power is a invariable power source as hydropower, ... and is thus a vital component with variable power sources as windturbines, ... without resorting to energy storage methods (more expensive). I kept pstudier's article change that nuclear power is not renewable (which makes it extra clear that it is not renewable, yet still green). Perhaps that if really needed, the nuclear power debate below is better removed.

I would like to mention that if the section is maintained, the article could lose additional useless text furtherup, where the article tries (but does not succeeds) in telling about the problem at constraints & opportunities; availability and reliability.

Also, there is significant talk about the biggest renewable energy plants, ... in the renewable energy commercialisation section, if you wish to keep the article light, removal of paragraphs and dubble information here is probably more useful. Also, the Constraints and opportunities section is too large and is best chopped up (articles moved and info summarized).

Please accept changing the article from my modifications rather than removing it entirely, especially as it would help the people mentioned above.

KVDP (talk) 08:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My initial response, of course, is that this article is already way to long, and we should be looking to split from it, not add to it. Also, I would have thought that storage topics were already well covered in other articles. And of course much renewable energy is used without storage, eg., solar power plants in Spain and south-west USA which meet afternoon air-conditioning peaks as required. Johnfos (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Johnfos... this article is an overview of a very broad set of topics, so when there are articles that exist which discuss issues in detail (especially those not specific to this topic), then a few sentences and a wikilink or two should do the trick. NJGW (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I put the text in the new article suggested above ?

I can then merely place a link in the 'see also' section. The text could then also be usefl by linking from other articles as Solar_power#Energy_storage_methods As for the energy storage already being covered; this is true but you state the only other possibility for using renewable energy without power as mere production in periods of low-demand. This option does not allow the creation -or conversion to- a (near zero-emissions) power generation/distribution system. This one and only proposal is by far not flexible enough, and we should provide more and better info on wikipedia.

PS: I also saw there's a green energy article, perhaps could also be placed there ? Perhaps a better article name is Invariable green power generation/distribution system or Paring green energy production to consumption?

Also, I still think you'd shrink the intro (like I did in my -reverted- revision. Perhaps add the schematic proposed above. KVDP (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Look over energy storage. It and all it's sub-articles cover this quite well and/or are the articles which should be expanded. No need to reinvent the wheel. Link to the existing articles as needed. Also, your suggested titles are far too cumbersome. NJGW (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Biomass Typos

Biomass section starts off with: "Solid biomass is mostly commonly usually used directly as a combustible fuel, producing 10-20 MJ/kg of heat."

I suggest that this should be changed to:

"Solid biomass is most commonly used directly as a combustible fuel, producing 10-20 MJ/kg of heat."

Cheers, Dopplershift (Preceding comment added by 124.169.145.182, 06:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion discussions

I have moved text from this proposed section to various other places in the article, mainly the debate section entitled "Constraints and opportunities". Johnfos (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This probably won't come as a surprise to you, but I disagree with this organization. It breaks up a coherent discussion on the matter of definition and puts it into the status-quo sections which are confusing and vague. "Constraints and opportunities", really? What information is that giving the reader when the content deals with groups lobbying for it to be excluded from RES? Do you consider a group doing this lobbying to be a constraint on growth? Can you give me a better justification? My title of "Inclusion discussions" avoids labeling 'controversies' (as we've had before and are sure to have again), and gives a matter-of-fact summary of the content - discussions about inclusion of stuff. Why again should it be "Other issues->Nuclear power"? That's close to titling it "stuff that doesn't belongs in this article". If it really don't belong in the article, then fine, we'll remove it.

Maybe this highlights a basic difference with our wants, where I want to see this as an article mostly about the term, whereas you want to see it as an article about the stuff the term denotes. The article is heavily laden with words meant to 'educate' about the sources themselves, although this is redundant and already done time and time again in Wikipedia. At the same time that info on power sources is abundant, the question of "what is this?" is terribly neglected both for terms and the MW numbers that still don't give any idea of what kind of MW. IMO, an ideal section breakdown would be like definition, cultural significance, history, public policy, etc.

And finally, yes, I have a problem with it because it gives different treatment to nuclear power. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's clear the "inclusion discussions" are looming large for you, so maybe start a separate page on that if you wish. Johnfos (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Diesel engines

Rudolf Diesel did design its first engines to run on coal powder. That was readily available at the many coal mines. He did not succeed in doing so and killed himself almost. For controlled ignition he used vegetable oil, injected through a system designed by Robert Bosch. He saw a great future for the farmers to produce all the oil needed for his engine. The success was, as we know, so big that a shortage came about, filled in by the mineral oil companies.

118.68.247.28 (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Other issues

As I've said many times, this article is too long to easily read and navigate. Would anyone object to my removing the "Other issues" section at the end? The section adds little of relevance. Most of these issues are already discussed elsewhere, and a few extra items in "See also" should cover things. This would reduce length and complexity and make the article a lot tighter. Johnfos (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Johnfos (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but nuclear power is clearly a major topic in the renewables discussion and to simply pretend that it doesn't exist isn't beneficial to the readers. The main cite I've added clearly shows that it's a major issue in direct conflict with renewables. Simesa (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am in strong agreement with Simesa here. That is an issue too important to leave out, but I want to add that careful wording is important. I also agree with Johnfos, however, that Other issues should be nuked. That title is a copout for developing descriptive labeling of sections, I'm happy to see it go. However, if it were up to me to shorten the article, the first thing I would take a knife to would be the commercialization section, which looks more like fancruft to me. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear is not really even a topic when it comes to renewable energy. It is only a topic because ill-informed persons want to pretend that nuclear is renewable so that they can get funding for it. There are only 70 years worth of U235 left, at the current rate of consumption (doubling use to something like 5 to 10% of our energy halves the time it can be used), and to convert U238 to Pu239 would just be asking for trouble. Nuclear really should have no mention whatsoever. See my shorter answer (one word!) above. All forms of fission create tons of radioactive waste that must be stored under armed guard for a quarter million years lest it be used harmfully. With the ample renewable resources we have, there is absolutely no need for even one nuclear power reactor. Nuclear isotope reactors notwithstanding; for the purpose of creating medical isotopes, but not for the purpose of producing power. There are four unavoidable, primary, obstacles to using nuclear fission, but this is not the place to list them. Delphi234 (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much all of that is incorrect.

—WWoods (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Not likely. What we need to focus on is, is nuclear renewable? No. Then why is it even mentioned in the article? All of the rest I stand behind, other than the fact of course that there are indications that Uranium might be obtainable from sea water, but until that is being done commercially there is no need to include it in the equation. Plus you need to realize that if mining Uranium on Navajo Indian country is illegal, and it is, it might make sense to make mining it anywhere illegal, and it does. Plus you can add, that it is unlikely that nuclear fission will ever be considered a viable energy source. While nuclear fuel may create a million times less waste than coal, it still is many tons, and there is no solution to the waste problem. What we need to include in the article is factual information, not one persons ideas. We have accommodated the flatlanders for about long enough in my opinion. I say we just remove all mention of nuclear. Delphi234 (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that pretty much all of that is incorrect, but nuclear is not renewable, so shouldn't be seriously discussed in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ordering of sub-sections

This is a long article and is hard to orientate. Renewable energy types are not ordered by any criteria (alphabetical or world-wide production). I re-ordered renewable energies to alphabetical order and consistency with renewable energy sources template Template:Renewable energy sources, which appears at the beginning of the article. However this order has been questioned an reverted for unclear reasons. Feedback welcome. Elekhh (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've thought about it, and if you wish to try that re-ordering again, I won't object. But please give it a few days before making the change to see if anyone else comments here. Johnfos (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I just did a quick check and found that many other related articles also lack a consistency in this regard. Renewable energy in China, Renewable energy in Germany, Renewable energy in the United Kingdom, Renewable energy in the United States to name just a few are all inconsistent and don't follow either logic of alphabetic order nor other order such as share of electricity generation. Below a table to provide an overview:

no	RE template	Renewable energy	RE in China	RE in Germany	RE in UK	RE in US
1.	Biofuel/mass	Wind power	Hydropower	Wind power	Wind	Hydroelectricity
2.	Geothermal	Water power	Wind power	Photovoltaic solar power	Wave and tide power	Wind power
3.	Hydroelectricity	Solar energy	Solar power	Geothermal industry	Biofuels	Solar
4.	Solar energy	Biofuel/mass	Biomass and biofuel	Hydroelectricity	Geothermal power	Biofuels
5.	Tidal/Wave	Geothermal energy				Geothermal power
6.	Wind power
Order:	alphabetic	none	none	none	none	none

I think consistency would be useful, and alphabetic order would be the best way to go. In this regard I would suggest renaming the Water power section in this article to Hydropower. Elekhh (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine, change Water power to Hydropower in this article. As for the other articles, please raise the issues on the relevant talk pages. I would have thought that where a country is an acknowleged leader in a particular technology that discussion of that technology should come first. For example, Germany is a world leader in Wind power, so discussion of wind power at the start of the article seems appropriate. Johnfos (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree. Each article has its own logic (and order). Important is to have an order of some kind (either alphabetic or by importance). For the main Renewable energy article is a lucky coincidence that Biomass/gas which has the largest share of electricity production globally also comes first in the alphabet. The advantage of alphabetic order though is consistency througout all related articles, and stability in time (whereas importance might change in time). Elekhh (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In the context of Scotland, starting with biomass would be absurd as wind and hydro are much larger both currently and in terms of overall potential. However, using current capacity would not make much sense either. First of all its changing - onshore wind is overtaking hydro, offshore wind may be largest within a few years with tidal power close on its heels. It would not make sense to me to relegate tidal power to the end of the article because the output is currently next to nothing when the total capacity is so large. The focus of the article is the potential, not the uninteresting truism that there are some trees in the country. The most prominent renewables contribution in Brazil is currently ethanol - and I'd expect to see that near the beginning of the article. One of the most interesting things about renewable energy is that it is widely distributed and the forms its utilisation takes is likely to be dependent on local conditions. In short the order of the article should be determined by the relative degree of importance of the sub-topic to the article, not some global plan to alphabetise. The world is not boxed-shaped - why try to put it in one? Articles on this subject are likely to significantly increase in number and scope and a degree of local interpretation is inevitable. Ben MacDui 08:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's tricky though with potential... since that means making asumptions about the future, and that can be subjective. There is often a discrepancy between theoretical potential and practical potential. But to clarify the above: I wasn't suggesting an unique order - obviously each aricle has its own logic. I was suggesting that an order of some kind (alphabetic, current electricity production, current growth rate of the sector, planned share of electricity production, etc.) is better than no order at all. Currently there is a lack of legibility - since there doesn't appear to be any clear order in many of these articles (this does not apply to the article on Scotalnd). Elekhh (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

• 17:43, 9 March 2008 GDonato protected Renewable energy ‎ (Semi-protection: Vandalism, constant; returns after protection expired. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

That was over 18 months ago. I'd like to review it to see if semiprotection is still considered necessary. As well as welcoming views from regular editors I have contacted GDonato, the protecting admin. --TS 11:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I welcome the semi-protection. This is a popular article with readers (mainly school students I think) and so we are open to quite a bit of IP vandalism here. And there seems to be few established editors who regularly watch this page, so reverting vandalism could become an onerous task without semi-protection. Johnfos (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no strong feeling on the subject; I suppose the only way to find out if removing the protection is a good idea is to try it. GDonato (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with Johnfos that the article could well be a magnet for abuse, and thus would be better off semiprotected. But there's only one way to be sure, and that's a brief initial period of unprotection. I'd be watching vigilantly and any vandalism would be quickly reverted by me if not others. I'll ask on Wikipedia:Requests for protection (WP:RFPP). --TS 17:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like the semiprotection to be reinstated please. It's clear that we can't always scrutinise and cleanup after the IPs have been at the article. Here is one example where the wrong word was introduced into the text on Sept 28, and it is still sitting there: [16]. Semi-protection would really help us maintain article quality, and after all that is the bottom line. Johnfos (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done —WWoods (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, Ww, for that. Johnfos (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this was a premature action. Let me explain.

Johnfos says "It's clear that we can't always scrutinise and cleanup after the IPs have been at the article". I don't think that claim is remotely supportable. The Mediawiki history and diff functions are designed specifically for the purpose and several of us have obviously been doing just that, otherwise the article would still bear traces of vandalism.

Moreover Johnfos thinks that a wrong word was introduced into the article and he seems to imply that it could not be detected or removed. The word is presumably "trapping" in the phrase "trapping the heat of the earth itself". where previously the wording was "tapping" as in "tapping the heat of the earth itself". This is not vandalism, nor is it inappropriate. It is at worst a misconceived spelling correction, but the sentence makes as much sense with either meaning--in other words it's normal wiki editing. The fact that Johnfos has scrutinized the changes and detected this change demonstrates that we are,indeed, perfectly capable of doing so, just as we do on every single other unprotected Wikipedia article.

If the new wording is so blatantly wrong, why had Johnfos himself not corrected it? Why indeed has nobody else corrected it in the several hours since he pointed it out? As I write it is still in the article.

Uh, no it's not. —WWoods (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The article was unprotected just over 4 days ago. In that time there have been 9 IP edits:

1 and 2: 17:55, 28 September 2009, vandalism, reverted 90 minutes later by another IP edit

3: 13:49, 26 September 2009, vandalism, reverted 40 minutes later

4: 11:46, 27 September 2009, external link added, removed about 3 hours later

5: 17:55, 28 September 2009, the change in wording discussed by Johnfos and then by me above.

6: 09:54, 29 September 2009, external link added, removed 8 hours later.

7 and 8: 16:25, 29 September 2009, a test edit and 16:27, 29 September 2009 its reversion two minutes later by the original author

9: 19:56, 29 September 2009, vandalism. reverted two hours later

So of 9 IP edits, 3 were unequivocal vandalism, 1 was a vandalism revert, 2 were test edits, 1 was a normal Wikipedia copy edit and 2 were additions of links that, while not up to Wikipedia inclusion guidelines, were not grossly inappropriate.

Whoever says this is an unmanageable level of vandalism is probably exaggerating. The article is obviously being watched closely by many editors, none of whom has been put out to the extent of having to revert vandalism or unwanted links more than once in four days. Moreover 2/3 of the IP edits were in good faith and not clearly identifiable as vandalism. If we didn't want people to make possibly mistaken changes to our articles we wouldn't have started a wiki.

Please consider unprotecting again. Re-application of protection at this stage was not justified by the evidence. --TS 00:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Tony, with respect, I think you are getting carried away with all this sp review stuff. History shows that things work a lot better when this article is semi-protected and it's a case of "if something ain't broken don't fix it". It's not as if we had some enthusiastic IP clamouring to edit the article, or something like that. And if the article was not semi-protected again by Ww I probably would have put it in the too hard basket and taken it off my watch list. Johnfos (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

During the time it was unprotected the net change was one "See also", one interwiki link, and one arguably good-faith error. So pretty nearly all the activity was messing up the article and then fixing it. It hadn't caught my eye when John hadn't posted about it, and left to myself I'd probably have let it run to 50 edits before deciding whether to lock it, but some articles are just vandal-bait, for reasons I've never understood.

However, if you want to remove protection, or to reduce the protection period from the current 6 months, I won't object. —WWoods (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My experience is that most of the vandalism of techie articles comes during the school year, and that sp is preferably avoided so that the odd professor who comes along (and the even ones too) who sees something wrong can fix it without having to register an account (and wait four days, long after they have forgotten what they were going to fix). My stomach for vandalism is a lot stronger than most, and I don't see any need for sp unless it gets to the range of 50 a day or so. Fortunately there are a large number of vandal patrollers,[17] so any vandalism is usually reverted quite quickly. 199.125.109.54 (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It is worth evaluating some of the sources that are cited regarding nuclear power. The Newsweek piece referenced provides a very slanted yet meaningless statistic about "lemon" nuclear power plants. I would recommend dropping the indictment of nuclear unless you are actually going to do a comprehensive comparison which is beyond the scope of the article. Akcita 7:54 27 November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akcita (talk • contribs) 01:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Maybe It's just me, but the opening paragraph doesn't seem to be accurate or make any sense

In 2006, about 18% of global final energy consumption came from renewables, with 13% coming from traditional biomass, such as wood-burning. Hydroelectricity was the next largest renewable source, providing 3% of global energy consumption and 15% of global electricity generation.

I believe that Hydroelectricity is the largest renewable source, by a significant margin, even according to the linked pdf. Also, the inclusion of global energy consumption as compared to electricity generation doesn't make sense. Unless somehow this is refering primarily to biomass in non-electricity generation? Which would tend to be counterintuitive sort of new to this, is this how you sign? (Sean9keenan (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

Request to add magnet turbines to the renewable energy page.

Nova Renewable DUNS#: 832736248

Beware: many people have deleted extremely important information about this request including citations. Can I request to have someone dig up the deleted information that is currently on the history section? Also, NASA Langley asked to have an unsolicited proposal submitted.

from Poteat, Marcia M. (LARC-B1)TESSADA & ASSOC INC <marcia.m.poteat@nasa.gov> to "jorge.a.perez.perez@gmail.com" <jorge.a.perez.perez@gmail.com>, "Garner, David O. (LARC-B103)" <david.o.garner@nasa.gov>, "White-Woolaston, Yolanda (LARC-B1)TESSADA & ASSOC INC" <yolanda.white-woolaston-1@nasa.gov> date Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:27 AM subject FW: Magnet Turbine Technology- Unsolicited Proposal mailed-by nasa.gov

Mr. Perez,

Please forward me a copy of your proposal via e-mail or regular mail.

Many thanks,

Marcia M. Poteat, Grants Administrator

Tessada & Associates, Inc.

NASA Grants Office

Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681-2199

757-864-2417 (Phone)

757-864-7709 (FAX)

Marcia.M.Poteat@nasa.gov

--99.92.178.161 (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Request to add magnet renewable energy to renewable energy page. (again, removing text of deleted article)

Georgeperez (talk · contribs) would like to add information on "magnet renewable energy". His article on this topic has been speedy deleted several times in the past 24 hours. Does this technology even exist? There were no sources given by George. I'll have a look for independent sources. NJGW (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What sort of information do you need? I showed you how to make the technology. Why must you continue to delete my information? Could you not ask me if this information is true? I'm putting it up one more time, this is actual renewable energy. If you could stop deleting my post, I would greatly appreciate it. If you need more information about this technology you can visit [2] or [3] to view information about the company that creates this new renewable energy. What else do you need from me? What else can I add? This is a perfectly clear example, is it not? It is not fair that you continue to delete my posts. Who do you work for? I have an environment to save. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeperez (talk • contribs) 02:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

They are not perpetual motion devices they are called Magnet Turbines. You can even ask Rachel Prucey @ NASA's AMES, they just sent a request through Next Generation @ NASA Ames Research Center google group [18] to have the reliable indoor renewable energy technology brought aboard. --68.190.93.61 (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Magnet Renewable Energy google group [19] --99.92.178.161 (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Magnet renewable energy sounds interesting and would be nice to add here. But, can u please tell what is the ultimate source of that energy? Because all other energies like wind, hydel, etc. have ultimate source as sun. All of these use magnets and the "motor-generator" Faraday's electromagnetic induction principle for converting mechanical energy to electrical energy.

If are you trying to add a new technology to the generator model, it shouldn't be here.

If it is a new energy, we can add it here. Mention the ultimate source: Whether it is also the sun or whether it is going to drain on earths rotation? But, please provide accesible sources for your claim. It is not even necessary the technology has been implemented. Even theoritical citations are enough (we can add it as Under Experimentation). We need citations, not advertising! Vayalir (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This technology utilizes the power of magnets facing negative on negative sides to turn the rotor of a turbine exactly like a wind turbine. Yes, the turbines have a generator connected to the high speed shaft, however, they are completely seperate components. The main power source is the average natural magnet. --68.190.93.61 (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a new energy! We can add it here. If you look at the history section you can even see how to make the technology yourself. This is not advertising. --99.92.178.161 (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The history section of the discussions seems to have plenty of proof that the renewable energy exists. I noticed many people are attempting to cover this part up. Watch as the same people attempt to delete what I just wrote and these links. --144.89.85.207 (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Where did the links go? I think kids are playing around with us, the discussions page should be locked to protect the information we are entering.

For questions, you can also join the google group named Magnet Renewable Energy[4]. --68.190.93.61 (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This user constantly tries to insert links to a company that supposedly sells a perpetual motion machine. No clue if they actually deliver anything, or are just trying to gather some venture capital for some magical technology. Best to ignore until they manage to come up with actual links. NJGW (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Links are located in the history section. --97.88.249.158 (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The actual links may not be found in that the technology is brand new. The websites posted are not aimed at advertising, this is for scientific research purposes only. Thank you.

--68.190.93.61 (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, this technology is real, the main source is natural magnets. If you do not believe this technology exists, simply call the inventor @ 608-362-8534. There, I said it. --97.88.249.158 (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The company that created it is registered under NASA AMES NSPIRES sam makerbaby as Nova Renewable. They are focusing this technology on outer planet research. --97.88.249.158 (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Renewable electricity

I suggest an article about renewable electricity and connecting renewable energy systems to the power grid, known as interconnection [20]. --Nopetro (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please review what we already have on this topic, eg. Renewable Electricity and the Grid, and speak to User:Engineman who is quite knowledgeable in this area. Johnfos (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Competition with nuclear power

I changed the last paragraph a bit:

• Removed the claim about France being the only significant user of nuclear power. If we define "significant" as "providing >50% of electricity production", then there are 3 countries meeting this criterion (France, Belgium, Slovakia).
• Changed 'ended' to 'significantly hindered' - nuclear power did not 'end' after Chernobyl or TMI, because existing reactors did not cease operation, but its development was seriously impeded. Also added a link that lists planned new nuclear power deployments in the US.
• About Bernard Cohen's proposition, changed 'this claim has not been proven' to 'this idea is not universally accepted'. Claims about future events cannot be proven until those events happen, so 'not being proven' is not a valid argument against a prediction.

--Tweenk (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you look up significant in the dictionary and choose a better word. It only means more than 50% when used in the context of 'statistically significant. Tyrerj (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Synthetic Fuel

This article appears to have what I have found to be a typical Green bias which is the failure to understand that synthetic fuel made from biomass or organic waste is renewable energy.

Tyrerj (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

i think that if we used renweable energy then we would be able to have lots of energy and it would harm the planet and also it would cost less money ...<3<3<3

External Links

I would like to suggest this external link:

• HydroExpert by HydroByte Software, (freeware multireservoir and hydropower simulation tool)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.29.16.94 (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hydro Power

added link to kinetic energy Greenopedia (talk • contribs) 17:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Request to add carbon neutral growth rate to "contsraints and opportunities"

{{editsemiprotected}}

I would like to request the following section be added under the constraints and opportunities section of this article:

Carbon Neutral Growth Rate

It can be expected that the production of any renewable energy technology will require a large initial input of energy, in order to fabricate the components of the technology. This input of energy at the moment will be supplied primarily by carbon intensive technologies, which indicates that any implementation of renewable energies in the near term will also require an "investment" of embodied carbon dioxide emissions. Looking at a single implementation, this is not a large issue as any renewable energy technology will produce much more clean energy over its lifetime than this initial investment. An issue occurs, however, when there is a rapid scale up of these technologies, as is being called for by many climate change mitigation scenarios. It is possible that if these technologies are implemented too quickly, the initial investment of carbon dioxide will continue to increase as more technologies are produced, without each successive wave of production having time to repay their initial carbon investment. The end result could be that a scale up of renewable energy technologies that is too fast could in fact have a net increase in the total carbon emmissions over the period of the scale up, which could increase the carbon dioxide levels to above the "tipping point" levels predicted by many climate change scenarios. The good news is that there is an optimal carbon neutral growth rate, which allows an appropriate scale up of technologies while still keeping below climate thresholds, which should be taken into account when developing any renewable energy deployment policies.

Source: R. Kenny, C. Law, J.M. Pearce, “Towards Real Energy Economics: Energy Policy Driven by Life-Cycle Carbon Emission”, Energy Policy 38, pp.1969–1978, 2010.

Roba77 (talk)

YVerified that this content is entirely derived from the specified source (DOI 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.078), however I'm not sure if this is undue weight for this source as the entire section would be derived from one source. Accordingly, I'm leaving my "verified" comment here to indicate the information is well-cited, but waiting for someone more experienced in this article to perform the actual edit as a double-check. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It does seem to be an unlikely argument for further prevarication. It seems to me unlikely that the technologies imagined would use such a vast amount of fuel to implement that they would be so significant when weighed against the daily emissions of billions of commuters, current electricity generation, heating and cooling of every builing in the entire 1st and 2nd worlds, the daily production of all the consumables of the world's population etc etc. I think, if we wanted a slow 'scale up', we really should have started several decades ago, and that this is or will turn out to be an unlikely and non-notable contribution to the planning of the climate-change mitigation process. --Nigelj (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

politics

do people have the right to express their opinions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.74.255.253 (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes - that's what the talk pages are for. However, in articles themselves, editors can only express other's opinions as reported by reliable sources - and then only in a balanced way. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Image removal

It seems the file of the left has been removed:

A microbial electrolysis cell produces hydrogen directly from plant material

Can it be reincluded ? It clarifies the text and shows that there are other ways of generation energy from biomass.

Also the image:

A plant microbial fuel cell (PMFC)

could be included.

KVDP (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not promote your own pet technology here

Several editors have been trying to promote some of the more obscure technologies such as microbial fuel cells and osmotic power in this article. Please do not promote your own pet technology here. This article is already quite long and it is an overview which only deals with major technologies as defined by the IEA:

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. (p. 9)

Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely fail to see the distinction between the two technologies you cite and geothermal (which, technically speaking, is essentially infinite but definitely not renewable), nor do I see how the definition you cite (which is from a year 2002 publication which only discusses the "mainstream" technologies) excludes those two new technologies as being renewable. Even if it did, should we adhere to that definition? I thought Encyclopedias were meant to be all-encompassing ("A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field,..."). These also don't appear to be "pet technologies", as their articles have had fairly significant editing in them - "microbial fuel cell" gets 59,000 Google hits, and Norway even has a prototype osmotic power plant. In any event, Relativity was once crackpot science too. Please quote Wikipedia policy on your exclusions, which I'm restoring in some fashion pending discussion. Simesa (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Availability And Reliability section that did not discuss those

I fail to see how we can have an Availability And Reliability section in this article that does not at least mention Energy storage means and Energy demand management.

Also, what I found herein was a study referencing a dead link to a blog, Amory Lovin's comments not based on any study referenced here, a quote from a "plan" to Scientific American from an obscure professor and some second person, and a statement of "conclusions" from a study German scientists were just starting - the one solid reference. I'm not against renewable power, but I am highly adverse to poor reporting.

The "plan" to Scientific American is said to cover 8 pages and is available for $8 here. I'll look it up, but it's allegedly a "plan" not a feasibility study such as the Germans are running. Simesa (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the above "plan" consists of twin articles, critiqued here. Still, just having appeared in Scientific American might make it notable, if the criticisms (such as lumping nuclear weapons fallout in with nuclear power) are also noted. Simesa (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from RyanEB2, 28 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Under 4.3.3 it states "Wind power occupies less land area per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity generated than any other energy conversion system, apart from rooftop solar energy, and is compatible with grazing and crops." But their is no source specifically for this quote. I do not see how this is popular. If you look at http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_environment.html#How%20much%20land%20is%20needed%20for%20a%20utility-scale%20wind%20plant which is the website for the American Wind Energy Association it states that land use could be as small as 2 acres per MW but also up to 60 per MW. On a 1600MW plant this would equate to 3200 - 96000 acres depending on conditions where current nuclear power plants that have 2-3 1200-1600 MW reactors take up only 1000-1500 acres. I propose that this line be removed or a valid source be found to back it up.

RyanEB2 (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)RyanEB2

Don't forget a nuclear plant needs many acres for mining, refining, reprocessing and storage. Although I'm not against finding a source for the text, of course. In the UK, farmers farm round the turbines, so the area "used up" by the turbines is minimal. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Done ...but for a different reason. The cited source [21] includes that claim verbatem. The whole start of the section is a cut and paste copy from the source. The claims need to be captured, not copied, and the claims may need attribution as the source seems somewhat editorial (it is presented as a responce to some other person's writings). Celestra (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and well spotted, Celestra. I felt that the text itself was valuable to the section as it dealt with onshore wind whereas the remaining paragraph was more specific to offshore farms, so I have reinstated it, but this time as a properly attributed and cited quotation from Mark Diesendorf. Diesendorf is a notable and published scientist in the field and his summary is worth retaining I feel - re-synthesising and re-wording its main points from other sources would be tedious. This is not one of his peer-reviewed papers, but since it is now attributed I think that is fine. --Nigelj (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(User:hjost) 5 May 2010
Many types of renewable energy are available. Solar energy comes in many forms, photovoltaic energy is where energy is converted into electricity, charged in batteries and transferred to a utility grid. It is a standalone system that creates backup power. Concentrating solar power is where mirrors reflect and concentrate sunlight into receivers. This is a linear concentrator that provides dish systems and power tower systems with energy. It is also used in thermal storage. Solar heating is for heating water. Solar panels absorb the energy from the sun then transfer it to generators for hot water, space heating and pool heaters. Japan, Germany, Spain and California are using solar energy as their mainstream source. (U.S. Dept. Energy – Solar)

Wind power is the fastest growing energy source. It converts kinetic energy to mechanical power. Wind turns turbines which spin the shaft. The shaft is connected to a generator to make electricity. Wind farms, where these turbines are, produced 70.8 million megawatt-hours of electricity. These farms also saved the planet from 40 million metric tons of carbon dioxide; this is the same as taking 7 million cars off the road. It saves the earth from mining and drilling, and the production of hazardous materials that come from it. Normally conventional power plants 20 billion gallons of water are used in steam or cooling, wind energy makes it possible to save these billions of gallons of water. There are over 200 farms in the U.S. today, this supports 85,000 jobs. If these farms continue to spread there would be more jobs available in this field instead of mining of fossil fuels. (U.S. Dept. Energy – Wind & Water)

Hydro power is energy through moving water. The turbines are turned by the water generating kinetic energy which is then stored for electricity. No fuels are used for this, it reduces greenhouse emission and the cost is low. The possibility for this could create enough power for twenty-eight million households. There are low field water plants; this is where the natural flow of rivers or streams is used to generate electricity. High field plants are used in dams where water is stored. These produce more energy but cause the natural flow of water to stop. (Perlman)

There are a lot of things that can be done in the near future but what can humans do right now at home? Reduce you use of electricity by just turning off lights when you leave a room or unplugging unused appliances. Different types of heating and cooling systems can save energy along with proper insulation, the proper weather stripping and caulking along with ventilation can keep the heat in or the cold out. Landscaping with shading, windbreaks and xeriscaping can help to hold the needed temperature in. Natural lighting is another way to save energy, open the curtains during the day instead of turning on all the lights. (Clean Energy Sources) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.137.194 (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Fastest growing

I added a dubious tag to this claim in the PV section. If you google: "Fastest-Growing Energy Technology" solar; you will find this claim. If you google "Fastest-Growing Energy Technology" wind; you will get at least as many making the claim for wind energy. Rmhermen (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Have changed wording to "a fast-growing energy technology". Johnfos (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we normally rate figures from Google searches over items sourced to reliable sources. The source is SocialFunds.com, dated 2009, which itself sites a report by GlobalData. Is this a WP:RS? I don't know, but it is more reliable than Rmhermen's Google searches (WP:OR). --Nigelj (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Before insulting another editor, did you even bother to check the searches I suggested? Why would I believe that Socialfunds is a reliable source for renewable energy data? The name doesn't suggest it nor can I judge GobalData's RS by its name alone. However, the google search shows the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Eurupean Commission, U.S. Department of Energy and the National Atlas all claiming wind is the fastest growing - and that is just the first page of results. Rmhermen (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Human power energy

Strange, that in an article like this, electricity, generated by human power isn't mentioned at all. Nevertheless it might be one of the oldest forms of renewable energy. Since how long already lights of bikes are made working by the biker himself, as he pedals, while the dynamo is droven by the turning of one of the two wheels? Maybe (not quite) hundred years?

By now more and more products, that used to function on batteries, are also available in a version, provided with a crank, so that the owner can load it with his own personal human renewable energy.

And then there's the fact, that a certain nature protecting foundation for years already is trying to get a decisive answer on it's repeatedly posed question, how many pedaling persons it would take, to together make a small energy plant function. (Just imagine, hardly any jobless any more, because as good as anyone can pedal for some four hours a day, which is less, than cyclists use to do, when they are active. Of course this gives some associations with historical galley slaves, but by now professional cyclists, although sometimes called "Slaves of the road" in general have little to complaint about. In other words, it could be made quite luxurous in there. Natubico (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I had the same idea about human power replacing power plants. However, even trained cyclists don't usually reach more than 250 watts, so after four hours you would (at most) get a single kWh of energy per day. However, human power for direct use (as in bikes) deserves a mention in this article IMO. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So it has been tried out? Where, when, how? Did they use a caster wheel? Natubico (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, how many men would it take, to make the rotor of a windmill turn that fast, that it generates as much electricity, as the wind averagely does? In other words: could pushing men profitably generate electricity for a company, in places, where windenergy is no option? --Natubico (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In the mean time we found this: [22]; so indeed, 250 Watt an hour is reachable. But, without use of a caster wheel; otherwise it might be essentially more. And: now that there are LED lamps, 250 Watt has become some 2500 Watt (2,5 kWh) in the field of lighting. This user has reduced his personal use of electricity (and energy) to some 200 Watt a day. So one hour of pedalling (without caster wheel) would do. VKing (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hereby a proposal to add this to the list in the article:

===Human and animal body power===

When for instance a person is biking, it is his or her physical power, that is making the bike role.

When a horse is towing a cart, or a buffalo a plough, it is m.m. no different.

These kinds of energy certainly are renewable, as humans and animals in principle keep getting new energy, as long as they live. When they don't any more, there are bilions of others, that still do and can take over the work with their body energy. VKing (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure how to respond as a lot of this makes little sense to me. I keep coming back to the main sources and technologies defined as renewable by the IEA [23]. I can't see "Human and animal body power" discussed there, and so it shouldn't be in this article. Johnfos (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would make sence to ask the IEA whether it simply forgot to mention and discuss the two oldest, cleanest, and possibly most important sources of renewable energy.[24], [25], [26]. Maybe also it would make sence for Wp to admit undeniable facts into its articles, no matter they are mentioned in reliable sources, or not. Besides, encyclopedic content can very well be verifiable, without such a citation. When for instance everybody knows and can see that water is wet, then why should that fact be mentioned in a reliable source, before it can be in a Wp-article? It's very well verifiable without that. VKing (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As what is posed in the former edit wasn't denied or objected in any way, on july 11 I added the following new subsection:

===Human power===

The oldest renewable way in which man generates the energy, needed to get certain things done he wants to be done, is using his own muscles.

Not only this kind of energy in the past as well as in the present in many situations is used directly (for instance for transportation by bike), but also this human power nowadays is frequently used to generate the electricity, that is needed to get certain things done. An example of this is use of crank generators, that deliver the electricity needed to make flash lights or cell phones function.

On july 12 it was reverted with the argumentation that it is "poorly written and totally unsourced". This, whereas the reverting user, in case he can indeed judge about the poor- or richness of what is written in his native language, could easily have made the text that much richer, that it wouldn't have to be reverted, and he still didn't deny or invalidate, that sourcing is just one of the ways, in which added content can be made verifiable and not an absolute must. The facts that are mentioned in the new subsection are undeniable and very well verifiable in all day life, for as good as anyone. VKing (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding verifiability, sources are necessary:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

In my opinion, Human power, Animal power, and other non-mainstream renewable topics should be listed as fitting the definition of "renewable" on this page, but do not require full write-ups.--E8 (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Have added Human power and Animal power as links in the See also section. Johnfos (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Muscle power.VKing (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Renewable Energy Decision Making and Software Tools

A critical issue is that decisions regarding Renewable Energy are quantified. It would therefore be very helpful to provide a Wikipedia List or Article on those software tools and methodologies that can structure and quantify data for decisions regarding investment: how much CO2 is saved, what is the financial case and how much energy is produced for a given renewable energy technology in a given context. Organisations such as National Renewable Energy Labs (NREL) provide such lists of resources. Could these simply be referred to or does there need to be a specific Wikipedia article that links out to such collated resources? I declare an interest in seeking to help Wikipedia users aware of RETScreen , a free resource made available by the Canadian government, but there are others such as EnergyPLAN and HOMER.RichardHellen (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

We do have several articles on energy management software [27] and you may wish to add relevant info to them. Johnfos (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Where is Nuclear power?

Why is nuclear power not included in the list of renewable energy? http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Breeder_reactor and http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Fusion_power both fall under the definition of renewable imho... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.182.149 (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

We used to have a short section in here as to why that was not true according to the origins of the term, and not considered true by governments and those who hand out funding for 'renewables' either. I see the section has recently been moved to Renewable energy debate#Competition with nuclear power. --Nigelj (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not included under the definition of renewable because "renewable" is a useless marketing buzzword. Nothing is actually renewed, see the second law of thermodynamics; while it's true that you didn't have to perform any work to make sunshine or wind, you didn't have to do anything to make uranium or thorium either(you "just" dig it out of the ground in the same way you "just" capture sunshine, with materials you dug out of the ground). As wind and solar are not capable today of meeting the classical definition of sustainable, meeting the needs of today(can't and won't with any technology visible on the horizon; check back in a century) without compromissing the needs of tomorrow(unreliable and expensive electricity would delay and compromise electrification and transition away from fossil fuels). So, some other word had to be invented.85.227.188.94 (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 158.106.52.10, 26 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

157,900 MW should be 157,900 GW. The unit of measure is incorrect. This is confirmed in the source cited in the document:

^ REN21 (2008). Global Status Report 2007 REN21 Secretariat, 51 pages.

-Michaelson Buchanan

158.106.52.10 (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome. The first source in the article explicitly says 157.9 GW and the other source has a number of similar magnitude. Could you provide a quote from your source? Perhaps this is a decimal separator issue. The comma in 157,900 is a thousand separator, not a decimal separator. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Renewable energy usage in various countries

I think there should be a section in the article on renewable energy in various countries with top ten countries to be listed and their share of renewables. Bluesky10 (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. Some data is available at REN21, pages 57-58. Or did you have another source in mind? Johnfos (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Developing countries

There are organizations that helps promote renewable energy to help in developing countries, as http://www.solar-aid.org/ . Not all is commercialization. Also solidarity. --Diamondland (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Biofuel Classification

Biofuel should be a sub-topic of Biomass. It is an end product not a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.58.243.234 (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly... 157.9GW is equal to 157,900MW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.122.66 (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Life Cycle Engineering under the Renewable Energy Debate topic

No discussion of renewable energy should neglect the total Life Cycle Engineering of the technology. Life cycle refers to cradle to grave. It involves the total energy production (positive in terms of generation, negative in terms of loss) for design and development, manufacturing, installation, transportation, operational use, maintenance, and end-of-life (disposal). When viewed under these context, add up the total and determine for yourself the best value of any given technology.--71.245.164.83 (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Have added Life Cycle Engineering to See also list. Johnfos (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry man, don't see it referenced anywhere.--71.245.164.83 (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see the list at Renewable energy#Topics. Johnfos (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose to merge New renewable energy into this article. Right now, New renewable energy is a short unsourced article, which just explains a difference between "old" and "new" renewable energy. This explanation suits perfectly here, but it is not enough to deserve its own article. Beagel (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete New renewable energy. There just isn't significant content to merge, and this page certainly has had enough time to develop. Mention of the incentives should be made in Renewable energy and Kyoto Protocol should be wikilinked if not already done.--E8 (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect New renewable energy to Renewable energy. Johnfos (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Now redirected. Johnfos (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Scope of this article

One of the main sections of this article is "Mainstream forms of renewable energy", which presents a brief overview of each of the major renewable energy technologies. The section has a "More sources" tag on it so please don't even think of adding unsourced material here, and expect that anything that is presently unsourced there will eventually be challenged and removed.

Later we have the section entitled "New and emerging renewable energy technologies" which provides a brief overview of some of the newer renewable technologies, such as second generation biofuels.

Any material pertaining to the pros and cons of renewables should go in Renewable energy debate. Per WP:Summary style we just retain a summary of the debate article here.

If you are still not sure where to put any new material you have, please look in Lists about renewable energy and add it to one of the articles there. We cannot possibly put everything about renewable energy in this one article.

Past experience shows that all of this helps to keep the article readable, manageable, and of reasonable quality. Thank you. Johnfos (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

A debate is about people talking and weighing up the pros and cons, it's not about moving facts on the main topic of the article out into a separate article. The article really has to cover the whole topic.Rememberway (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I also note that you removed material in your edit that was not related to the subject line. Do not do that again.Rememberway (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you've been reverted by Mariordo. I'm not surprised. You don't seem to understand WP:RS and have tried to restore unsourced material where it does not belong. And you don't seem to understand WP:Summary style. Johnfos (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Renewability of Geothermal Energy

I don't think geothermal energy should be classified as renewable. Despite the fact that the source is vast, hypothetically if it were depleted how would it renew itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.21.161.107 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with above commenter. How is geothermal renewable, when it is depleted as you mine it? Moreover, how does one justify categorizing "traditional biomass" as "renewable" energy, when "traditional biomass" is just another way of saying burning wood or grass? It is already arguable that wind and solar are "renewable"; there is absolutely no sense in lumping energy sources that 1. are not environmentally friendly and 2. are not renewable or sustainable in any justifiable sense, as "renewable" energy.

Liontigerbear (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Mainstream renewables are those defined by the International Energy Agency, and geothermal is included here:

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. -- IEA Renewable Energy Working Party (2002). Renewable Energy... into the mainstream, p. 9.

Pros and cons of different technologies is in the Renewable energy debate article. Johnfos (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not about pros and cons of different technologies, it is about delivering non-misleading information. Lumping geothermal energy under "Renewable" is prevarication and misinformation. Geothermal energy is not replenished constantly except in an extremely limited number of locales. If geothermal is renewable, then so should fossil fuel be considered renewable, which is replenished by the natural process of anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organism.

Liontigerbear (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC).

You mentioned cellulosic ethanol but not Methyl Alcohol [Methanol], Butyl Alcohol {Butanol],

You mentioned cellulosic ethanol but not Methyl Alcohol [Methanol], Butyl Alcohol [Butanol], which can all be created from plants therefore are renewable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrrrprrrr (talk • contribs) 21:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Debate section improvements - as proposed

Nearly all forms of energy suffer from insufficiency and periodic disruption; Renewable energy sources may be periodically variable for natural reasons, while fossil fuels and nuclear energy may become unavailable due to catastrophic failure, political instability, and other causes. The International Energy Agency has stated that deployment of renewable technologies usually increases the diversity of electricity sources and, through local generation, contributes to the flexibility of the system and its resistance to central shocks.

All energy projects meet with local objections their visual and safety impact. The so-called NIMBY (not in my back yard) response adds years to the construction of nearly all new energy projects. In the USA, the Massachusetts Cape Wind project was delayed for years partly because of aesthetic concerns. However, residents in other areas have been more positive and there are many examples of community wind farm developments. According to a town councilor, the overwhelming majority of locals believe that the Ardrossan Wind Farm in Scotland has enhanced the area.

The market for renewable energy technologies has continued to grow. Climate change concerns, coupled with high oil prices, nuclear accidents and increasing government support, are driving increasing renewable energy legislation, incentives and commercialization. New government spending, regulation and policies helped the industry weather the 2009 economic crisis better than many other sectors.

editing notes:

• Objection: "...are sometimes criticized for being variable..." is an uncited criticism. Someone has to own this criticism. find them and name them, or leave it out. Nuclear power plants are also intermittent, oil prices, pipelines, drillrigs, and countries are "intermittent". A debate is a concentration on differences. If one wants to argue that oil is more regular than wind; we need a harder reference than "some".
• peak oil is a very specific predictive theory.
• nuclear accidents has reemerged as a driver of renewable energy.
• remove incomplete specificity.

(Note that diff can be used to see changes proposed Benjamin Gatti (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC))

Thanks for your good faith suggestions, but I can't help thinking that you have raised this discussion in the wrong place, as we have a whole article on the renewable energy debate and simply use the lead from that article as a summary here, per WP:SS. Johnfos (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If one wants to make the claim that nuclear and fossile fuel are equally intermittent as wind and solar energy, then we need harder reference than speculation about "catastrophic failure" and "political upheaval" and "other causes," whatever they are. Also, it should be noted that "catastrophic failure" and "political upheaval" will affect wind and solar just as it will nuclear and fossil fuel plants. Again, this is not about renewable energy "debate." It is about the article and the information it purports to deliver. When the article makes a suggestion that wind and solar are equally intermittent as nuclear and fossil fuel, then the article has failed in its mission of delivering information.

Liontigerbear (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC).

Obama's Photo on the right-hand side of the article

I'm not a hater or anything, and I'm not talking about politics here- but I'm not sure if President Barack Obama's photo of him talking at a public discussion on renewable energy is entirely relevant to the topic.

Agreements/disagreements?

The Tangmeister (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems fine to me... Johnfos (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree with you again Johnfos, I'm not convinced this is an appropriate position for a political positioning. Seems to me that someone is promoting Obama.--Alex Marshall (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Vortexrealm. Now he is the President of the United States, and he is featured here just as Bush is still featured in other articles regarding sustainable transport. See here (Bush appears twice and Obama once) and here as examples. By the way Lula is no longer the Brazilian President neither. What I would change is the location of the pic from the lead.--Mariordo (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Have moved image down per Mariordo's suggestion. Johnfos (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Article opening paragraphs

The lead in to the article doesn't read like an encyclopedic article. I am not convinced that the utilisation of so many %s in the opening paragraphs is correct. These will be constantly changing and I believe is more appropriate in the main article.--Alex Marshall (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not completely agree with you, but why don't you make a proposal here of a streamline version, so other editors can make suggestions before actually making any changes.--Mariordo (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Request to edit: Brazil percentage of ethanol in overall fuel consumption

The article states Brazil has 18% of ethanol in its AUTOMOTIVE fuel, whereas the accurate expression would be TRANSPORTATION fuel overall, for the 18% are of all transportation fuel including trucks, trains, boats, which are diesel powered. Diesel is 50% of transportation fuel in Brazil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.144.198 (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Biomass..

how does biomass give energy to support...a house's energy yearly for example??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.200.142.234 (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree - Even if the charge source is infinite (which it isn't), what battery can last forever? Section needs modification and references provable to the statements made. --96.244.247.130 (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Renewable is not the same as Sustainable

The sustainable energy article tends to discuss some of the more practical aspects of energy technology, including economy (cost-effectiveness) over the life cycle of a system.--96.244.247.130 (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, none of the energy sources referenced in this article can be considered renewable unless constrained to a limited lifetime. For example, sources derived from the nuclear powered Sun will die out as solar fusion dies in millions of years. Sources from earth (like geothermal) are also dependent on the limited thermal mass of the earth and internal nuclear fission, also expected in millions of years. Please be clear that such sources of energy are not infinite nor everlasting. --96.244.247.130 (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

But if the energy sources derived from the sun, aren't renewable, then there are no renewable energy sources (except for "tidal energy" and that will also die out in a very distant future), and the concept renewable energy becomes invalid. Or, put in another way, to be able to discuss renewable energy, there must be something called renewable energy. And is there anything more renewable than energy derived from the sun? Fomalhaut76 (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the Sun will die out in 2 _billion_ years, not millions of years. But I consider this discussion pointless. The important point is looking inward at the total system, which includes the costs in non-renewable energy to make the renewables such as solar PV cells, etc., etc. One also has to take into consideration what effects the change to renewable will benefit or harm other systems. For example, the dams supplying renewable electricity from the Columbia River have caused the population of the salmon to decline. Let's look at a large solar electric installation. The up-front cost of the plant, including the cost to build, and don't forget the cost to finance the construction, may add up to a very substantial amount, when compared to the amount of renewable energy savings the plant will produce over its lifetime. It is not wise to ignore these hidden non-renewable factors. Those costs of the construction, finance etc. should be subtracted from the renewable energy total so that the _net_ renewable benefit can be determined.

Nuclear energy seems to not be considered renewable. The French take their spent nuclear fuel and reprocess it to recover most of the unspent fuel. This is not done in the U.S. What I would like to know is how much non-renewable energy is required to make the fuel for nuclear reactors. It could be a very high percentage of the energy that is generated by the nuclear fuel during its use in the reactor. If it is a low percentage, then why not consider nuclear energy to be renewable? Those who think that uranium is non-renewable must also consider that breeder reactors generate plutonium, which is then used as a fuel. 204.75.251.5 (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ethanol is "renewable"???

Ethanol (referring to that which is used for fuel in the U.S.A.) is typically made from corn. To grow the corn (or any other crop for that matter) requires fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides, all of which are made using petroleum products. The corn is transported and converted using machinery that is powered directly or indirectly by petroleum products, coal or other non-renewables. Saying that ethanol is a renewable fuel is avoiding the truth.

Then the added factor of diverting crops which were grown for food to the production of ethanol has reduced the supply of these crops and caused the prices of foods made with them to rise. Farmers (or agribusinesses) have changed from growing other crops to growing crops for ethanol, causing further reductions in supplies of those other crops. Ethanol is not the green fuel people have been led to believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.75.251.5 (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Tidal power

Quick note - the first commercial tidal power station is not Strangford Lough, it is only the first tidal stream power station. I believe the first commercial tidal power was La Rance, France. guiltyspark (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource

Trade War in Solar Takes Shape by Keith Bradsher published November 9, 2011 New York Times See Talk:Renewable energy in the United States and Renewable energy in the People's Republic of China. 99.181.132.65 (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Bloomberg.com resource

Renewable Power Trumps Fossils for First Time as UN Talks Stall by Alex Morales - Nov 25, 2011 141.218.36.43 (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Excerpt ...

Renewable energy is surpassing fossil fuels for the first time in new power-plant investments, shaking off setbacks from the financial crisis and an impasse at the United Nations global warming talks. Electricity from the wind, sun, waves and biomass drew $187 billion last year compared with $157 billion for natural gas, oil and coal, according to calculations by Bloomberg New Energy Finance using the latest data. Accelerating installations of solar- and wind-power plants led to lower equipment prices, making clean energy more competitive with coal.

99.181.142.144 (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Carbon neutrality and Climate change mitigation is not the same as renewable. See Adaptation to global warming. 99.181.137.218 (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Ground Source Energy is not the same as Geothermal Energy

Geothermal Energy comes from the centre of the Earth - as correctly explained under "geothermal Energy". High temperatures can be accessed where volcanic activity comes close to the surface - sufficient to boil water, spin turbines and generate electricity. These high temperatures can also be used directly to provide space heating.

Ground Source Energy is different in source of energy - the temperatures held in the surface of the ground - down to 200 metres - are primarily determined by solar energy. The evidence is that the temperature in the ground at these shallow depths is very close to the Mean Annual Air Temperature at that location. [See http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/ibp/irc/cbd/building-digest-180.html ]. The temperature at six metres deep at the equator is the same as the temperature at the surface. The temperature at six metres deep at North Pole is the same as the temperature at the surface. The temperture at the equator is hotter because of the sun. Both the equator and the North Pole are - approximately - the same distance from the very high temperatures at the centre of the planet. The Sun is the primary influence.

Ground source energy cannot be used directly to generate electricity - the temperature is not hot enough to boil water. Ground Source Energy can be used to provide space heating - via heat exchangers and heat pumps. It is increasingly being used to do so. There are now over 1,000,000 ground source heat pump installations in the EU [see http://www.eurobserv-er.org/pdf/heat_pump_2011.pdf] , as well as increasing installations in North America.

An Encyclopedia entry on Renewable Energy needs to mention Ground Source Energy to keep up with events in the real world.

The distinctions between Geothermal Energy and Ground Source Energy are important. People come to Encyclopedias for knowledge.Spitfired (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)] Spitfired (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Verifiability is the minimum requirement for inclusion on Wikipedia, not truth. Do you have any reliable citations to support this content?--E8 (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

See citations now included above. Spitfired (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, those citations were not very helpful. I did a search for "Ground Source Energy" (GSE) in the docs cited but could not find the term used there. Also, you need to provide page numbers to relevant information in long reports. A lot more citations are needed to support what you are saying.

You have added GSE material to the "Mainstream forms of renewable energy" section, but GSE is not included in the IEA list of mainstream renewables. As the International Energy Agency explains: "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".

If GSE is mainly a European thing, then add sourced material to Renewable energy in the European Union. If you feel that GSE is notable enough, then you could start a separate article on it. Johnfos (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, but this subject is related to Seasonal thermal store.--E8 (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted. Have now added Seasonal thermal store to the See also section, and that should suffice. Johnfos (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Which navbox to use?

Which navbox should this page display?

Darx9url (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Sustainable Energy because it is uses a standard template and has the same look as the other navboxes used in Wikipedia. Darx9url (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Prefer Sustainable energy. fredgandt 04:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Renewable energy template. Per WP:Navbox, the Renewable energy template lists a small, well-defined group of articles, and follows the guidelines laid out there:

1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.

On the other hand, the Sustainable energy template has a large numbers of loosely-related links and appears overly busy and hard to read and use. Johnfos (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Renewable energy template- it matches the article title and the links are more relevant to the article content. I agree with Johnfos that the "sustainable" one contains less relevant links and looks uglier. Reyk _YO! 20:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Renewable It compliments this article much better and is simple. The sustainable template is meant for sustainable energy and renewable for this article. It would be nice to have something along the lines of "Renewable energy, part of a series on sustainable energy..."--NortyNort (Holla) 01:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I guess the expectation is with these navbox/navbars is that readers go on and on and read related articles. But looking to the viewer stats, when big increases of readership of an article like this occur (of the order of 10K+ for appearing in ITN, or FA on the main page), the increase is barely noticeable at the linked articles. So there is very limited functionality to them. On the other hand too many WP:SEEALSO type links, navbars and navboxes can unnecessary clutter the layout of the article (just look at how messy this talk page now looks), and occupy space which could be used for actually illustrating the article. So my first preference is to have none of these navboxes at the top, as there are already navbars at the bottom of the article both on renewable energy and sustainable energy. See also WP:NAVBOX#Disadvantages of templates. But if we have to have one, I prefer the Renewable energy template, as more closely related to the article, and less space demanding. --ELEKHH^T 01:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You make the point that these navboxes don't result in much traffic. That sounds right to me. On the other hand, they do help with organizing related topics, and if they look good, so much the better. Sunray (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Renewable energy template: RE template seems much more focused. The "Sustainable energy" template is arguable IMO. It includes entries such as "Green building" and various vehicles which are energy uses, rather than energy sources—a mishmash of unevenly related terms, IMO. Sunray (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Renewable energy template: per arguments presented by Johnfos, Sunray and particularly by Elekhh. Renewable energy template fits better to the article's title, it needs less space and it does not included debatable links such as mentioned by Sunray. Beagel (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Renewable energy template: Can't say I am much bothered, but I think the arguments I have seen support this choice better. JonRichfield (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Sustainable Energy because it offers context that is useful both for those who came here to learn about renewables as well as those who are confused about the terminology and meant something else. The links in the Renewable Energy template are all available in the article text so it adds very little. No biggie tho. Jojalozzo 19:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Renewable energy template since it is more succinct and the other one is redundant since sustainable energy is by definition renewable energy. The Sustainable Energy template should be deleted and the sustainable energy article should be merged into renewable energy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I'd be happy to see the Sustainable Energy template deleted as it is a very messy template with many debatable entries, but sustainable energy is not just renewable energy. This is explained at Renewable energy commercialization#sustainable energy. So the sustainable energy article and renewable energy article should be kept separate. Johnfos (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sustainable energy It is more informative. Someone should update the sustainable template to reflect the renewable template.Gsonnenf (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion at TfD seems to be going towards a merge of these two anyway. Most of our coverage of sustainable development (of which this topic is a subset) has severe problems with focus and example-itis: it wouoldn't hurt to have start setting a good example here by merging these templates and then reworking the result to contain only the most appropriate links for the subject matter. For that matter, it is entirely unclear to me as to why we have a whole separate article for sustainable energy anyway when the overlap between renewable and sustainable energy is so large. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There is considerable support here for the RE navbox because it is smaller, cleaner, and more suitable for RE articles. Merging the RE and SE navboxes would just create problems. Consider a normal bottom-of-the-page navigation template for Sustainable energy. Johnfos (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Renewable energy template per arguments presented above, a more simple and basic navbox, not consuming huge spaces. More closley related to articles which presents a well defined group of articles is better. On the other hand if we compare, sustainable energy is rather redundant. --Extra999 (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment It has been a completely polarized affairs at templates for deletion and here. Perhaps more users could comments out there. This is the main discussion isn't it? --Extra999 (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Renewable because it is smaller, and looks a lot better. Broader topics like sustainable energy should probably go at the bottom of the page - ProtoFire^→talk 18:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. I've been asked to comment on this page. I'm flying from China back to the States early tomorrow and won't be able to really give this my best attention until at least Friday and possibly as late as Monday. Will that be ok with most?Jobberone (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Renewable Energy, but modify that box slightly to link to sustainable energy. (doing so) Hipocrite (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This RfC is now closed and the consensus is to keep the Renewable energy navbox. Johnfos (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Include a logarithmic trend plot

Add caption here

We should show the growth of the solar and wind energy in a logarithmic scaled plot. This gives a good impression, that the growht rate was very constant over the last 20 years. The source of the data: Prof. Quaschning http://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/pv-welt/index.php and http://www.gwec.net/fileadmin/images/News/Press/GWEC_-_Global_Wind_Statistics_2011.pdf the graph is my own work Eduardheindl (talk) 09:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hint for those creating graphs: Make the text on your graphs large enough to be readable at thumbnail size. In other words, text big enough so axis labeling takes about 30% of the graph area. --71.38.174.33 (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is a better Plot, with large text

Add caption here

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardheindl (talk • contribs) 15:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of Solar power

Solar power is not renewable, the sun will only emit a fixed number of photons in its lifetime and each of those photons once emitted will never be replaced again.XavierGreen (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

From the perspective of the Earth, and of the timescales involved in human energy policies worldwide, it is always included - see the references cited in this article. Simple explanation: the sun supplies heat and light again every day and is only about halfway through its "main-sequence evolution" and so will continue to do for several billion more years. Please read the relevant articles, and the citations included in them, so that you are able to make more useful contributions. --Nigelj (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Given my education, i've had exposure to a greater volume of relevant materials than what is presented here. Radiological elements also constantly emit energy everyday yet they are not included here and emit energy in a similar manner to the sun. If something is only going to last seven billion years, then why should it be considered renewable and yet nuclear power not so (especially since nuclear fuel can be reprocessed, where as the suns photons cannot be).XavierGreen (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As editors of the project our own opinions don't matter. We base article content on verifiable reliable sources. Unless you can provide sources that classify solar energy as nonrenewable or that classify radioactive materials as renewable, this discussion is moot. Jojalozzo 21:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

There is this entire article on the subject, [[28]], it should likely be edited down and merged as a paragraph of this article.XavierGreen (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No. The clue is in the title of the article you link: various fringe and partisan individuals have proposed that nuclear energy is some kind of renewable energy, in order to try to get grants and other benefits for it, but they have failed. Because it's clearly nonsense - just as nonsensical as a scientifically educated person trying to pretend that they think that we need to worry about the sun running out of photons in the next 5 billion years. All the reliable sources agree on both points. --Nigelj (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Its not a fringe concept at all, infact the gentleman that first came up with the idea of peak oil, M. King Hubbert stated in the same paper that nuclear power using reprocessing was the most efficient and sustainable source of energy known to man, and other renowned scientists such as Bernard Cohen have estimated that the supply of uranium on earth alone is sufficient enough to at least match if not exceed the lifespan of the sun. Cohen even wrote a paper titled "Breeder Reactors: A Renewable Energy Source".[[29]]XavierGreen (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what Nigel and others have said above -- this is just not an appropriate addition -- have added relevant link to See also section Johnfos (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Xavier that the existing article on the proposed classification of nuclear energy as renewable could be boiled down to two or three sentences and included in this page. There are sufficient sources to establish it as a significant minority position. Well sourced, fringe concepts deserve due weight in the context of mainstream opinion. Jojalozzo 02:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think things will just get confused if we start talking about nuclear power in this article, but perhaps something about Nuclear power proposed as renewable energy could be added to Renewable energy debate. Johnfos (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont think it will be confusing at all if its included here. Solar power is "renewable" in the same manner as fast breeder nuclear power, its not a fringe concept at all as my sources clearly show. If you need more sources they can be provided, but i would hardly call two leaders in their scientific fields to be fringe theorists. It should be noted that nuclear power on a whole should not be included here, just the forms of production that are sustainable to the same magnitude as solar power.XavierGreen (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

People who have published ideas that have not been taken up by any governments, legislatures, national or international energy organisations, are fringe. There is some obscurity in the other article about Utah, but apart from that, please supply a reference to a legal or financial or funding or political or subsidy or UN definition of renewable energy that includes nuclear power. It has only been suggested or proposed by a few extremists in the past, and ignored by all the sensible people with a job to do. That's pretty well the definition of fringe. Still, it has its own article, and that article is now linked here as a see-also, which is pretty good for such an extreme minority idea. --Nigelj (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

To say that reprocessing and breeder reactors have not been taken up by governments is rather ignorant of the facts on the ground. The French government uses reprocessing in its production of nuclear power, and India is already producing thorium fuel cycle breeder reactors. The Prime Minister of India has frequently spoken of nuclear power as an important part of its renewable energy sources, for example [[30]].XavierGreen (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This really does seem very much off-topic to me. Johnfos (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Our article says: "Renewable energy flows involve natural phenomena such as sunlight, wind, tides, plant growth, and geothermal heat, as the International Energy Agency explains:

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."

We have found this IEA definition to be an authoritative and useful guide in the past. I have already added a relevant link to this article about nuclear power, and there could be scope for saying more in Renewable energy debate. But not here. Johnfos (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont see how off topic it is at all, there are respected scientists and government officials that consider breeder nuclear power plants to be renewable energy. In order for this page to be complete in scope, at least some mention of fast breeder nuclear power plants needs to be included on the page.XavierGreen (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear power

There used to be a section titled "Competition with nuclear power". From reading through the archives my understanding is that the consensus (after many debates over several years) was that this section would state that a minority considered (at least some forms of) nuclear energy renewable. This section was then removed at 6 May 2010 without any discussion (with the edit summary "(article getting too long -- split to Renewable energy debate)"). It is my understanding that if an article is split because of length, then you should leave behind a summary of the removed text. I can not return this part because of the semi-protected status of the article. Could someone else please fix this? 213.114.144.80 (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

When a large split is done, it is impossible to leave a summary of every sub-section, and that would rather defeat the purpose of the split wouldn't it. The lead section of Renewable energy debate is provided here as a summary of the new article as a whole, and full info about "Competition with nuclear power" is in the new article. Nothing has been lost. Johnfos (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Any mention of nuclear power has been lost from this article (except a link in the see also section). How about adding one or two sentences about nuclear power to the summary. For example: "Physicist Bernard Cohen proposed in 1983 that uranium dissolved in seawater, when used in fast neutron reactors, is effectively inexhaustible and constantly replenished by rivers, and could therefore be considered a renewable source of energy.[92][93] However, this idea is not universally accepted". — 213.114.145.73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC) (UTC).

This form of nuclear energy might be renewable by the definition of renewable energy used in this article. — 213.114.145.73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC) (UTC).

I think this would be very appropriate. Jojalozzo 13:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

If it were disallowed, then one might have to disallow several other so-called sources of renewable energy, such as geothermal. (This is one of the consequences of a poor term such as "renewable energy", which is not something that we can mend in this article, but a nuisance anyway.) JonRichfield (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I also would support the inclusion of at least a couple sentences on nuclear power's potential to be renewable. It would alleviate the concerns i had previously mentioned in the section above.XavierGreen (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Have added "Legislative and scientific definitions of renewable energy usually exclude nuclear power. However, Physicist Bernard Cohen has proposed that uranium dissolved in seawater, when used in fast neutron reactors, is effectively inexhaustible, and could therefore be considered a renewable source of energy." -- Johnfos (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Very good, though i have tweaked it to say breeder reactors since that is specifically what cohen and others talk about.XavierGreen (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Just because you have a coal vein in your backyard that is inexhaustible does not make it renewable. The primary attributes of a renewable resource are that you do not have to do anything to get it - the river just keeps on flowing, the sun just keeps on shining; and that it does not pollute the environment, neither of which are true of dragging uranium out of the ocean. I say it has no place in the article. The nuclear industry has three strikes now - Three mile island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Three strikes and you are out. When the original paper on peak oil was written it was titled "Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels" because at that time he envisioned replacing oil with nuclear. That vision has ended, and fortunately there is enough solar energy in one hour to supply all of our needs for a year. A million to a billion years from now we will use nuclear, but not that type of nuclear - the same type the sun uses, fusion - but only for interstellar travel. The best thing to do with uranium is leave it in the ground. The radiation of the Earth's mantle creates half of the geothermal energy we receive, and without it the Earth's core would have long ago cooled. With it the core will continue to supply energy for as long as the Sun lasts. What we have painfully learned is that there are four insurmountable obstacles to using nuclear energy - radiation, waste, accidents, and proliferation of nuclear weapons. There is no point in putting something into the article that will never be used. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If we did use it we could add it, but not until that happened, and I do not see it ever happening. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." We include information on osmotic power because it is almost certain to take place even though there are no osmotic power stations of any significant size (4kW supplies what percent of the world's energy demand?). For the same reason I do not see any reason to include beaming power from space. "Whoops there goes Detroit" is a quote from 40 years ago when that concept was first considered and quickly rejected. Now that we are post peak oil we can anticipate increased fuel prices to rapidly encourage the development of wind and solar, and either hydrostorage to use it when we need it or transmission lines so we can use it where it is needed. Or both. Wind energy is now increasing at 22%/year, solar at 70%. At that rate we will get most of our energy from wind and solar in less than 20 years. Too bad nobody seems to have noticed this. I figure in about 5 years they will figure it out. I noticed it three years ago, when wind and solar were only supplying 0.2% of our energy. As Einstein said, compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. Unfortunately we lag at the pain at the pump level rather than leading the decline in availability - which would reduce gasoline prices to $0.99/gallon if we did - and create a Bert and Ernie fixing the roof situation - why fix the hole if it is not raining? Fuel prices are set not by cost but by supply and demand. The only way to reduce prices is to reduce demand by switching to electric cars. Delphi234 (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What you personally prefer is no doubt a fascinating and notable study, in which case it deserves its own article, but not this one, which deals with the sadly poorly defined concept of "Renewable energy". Renewable energy in turn has little to do with inexhaustibility, such as a bed of coal that will outlast its own usefulness, it is relevant rather to self-replenishment, such as wind power or solar power, whether orbital or not. On the idea of orbital solar power, you not only have failed to do your homework; you haven't even bothered to check whether there is homework, or you would not be talking of material that reads like something out of "I, Robot". Please do not try to gild the gingerbread with your own personal criteria, such as whether it meets everyone's wish-lists by being innocuous and non-polluting etc. Those are nice ideas, but they belong in appropriate contexts, and redefining the subject matter of the article is nothing of the type. Nor do we need anybody's arbitrary baseballisms such as "three strikes and you're out"; that isn't even rhetoric; it is sloganeering. If it meant a thing, every power source that had caused three broken toes or cracked skulls because of injuries in construction would be out, and so would any that had led to three dwelling fires during its use by evil supporters. Nonsense comes cheap enough round here without your generous contributions of interstellar fusion etc. If WP is no xtal ball, neither are you, so do you mind very much sticking to engineering practicalities until such time as you have demonstrated the unnecessity of engineering, for example in extracting water power from rivers and solar power from sunlight. (One helpful tip to non-engineers: it isn't always quite as simple as it sounds! There have been many more than three strikes against water power for example. You never knew? Tsk tsk! Read the "Dam Busters" for a start.) You also had better avoid technical claims that you cannot sustain in any meaningful manner; for example, the your reference to how much energy falls on the planet is for thermodynamic reasons about as relevant as claiming (correctly) that there is enough energy in the core of the sun to vaporise this planet. That would be a lot more reassuring if we could use it in any practical way. Given your level of expertise in the matter, your evaluation of what best to do with uranium is about as inspiring as your ideas on interstellar travel, and about as interesting. Same goes for your pumped storage and the like. What on Earth were you thinking?

Personally I do not regard fission (or FTM fusion) power as renewable in the sense that I mentioned a para back, including breeder power, but bear in mind that the same argument could be levelled at Solar and wind power. However, they all could be of value in bootstrapping various forms of power that would reasonably be regarded as renewable. I am indifferent about their inclusion here, but safety is not one of their disqualifiers. JonRichfield (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)