Talk:Efficient energy use/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

"Renefficiency"

"Renefficiency" is the use of renewable energy and energy efficiency, mainly to address climate change, peak fuels and pollution. -posted on 30 December 2009 by Nopetro, according to History.

Nopetro (or your new alias, since your account is closed), you did not sign the above post so I did it for you.

I don't think so. Can you provide examples of where this word is used? Thanks Walkingstick3 (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Life Cycle Engineering

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 (position in terms of generation, negative in terms of loss) for design and development, manufacturing, installation, 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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.164.83 (talk)

Top Image and Comment

The comment for this image states that the bulb is popular among "American consumers" but the related source (1) does not mention this.

Either a new source is required or a change to the comment.

Lannly (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Images

Perhaps the Darvaza crater can be shown at Industry -->

This is an iconic image as the gas here was simply set ablaze rather than extracting it (or even simply letting it sit in the soil).

The compact fluorescent lightbulb is best replaced by an LED lightbulb; these being way more efficient and not containing as much poisonous elements. 91.182.227.212 (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"Rejected Energy"?

Why does "Rejected Energy" redirect here when the term is not defined or even used on the page? The term *is* used on http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/LLNL_US_Energy_Flow_2009.png Please consider this a major TODO. --Jonrock (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

YES PLEASE. It makes no sense that this links here with no explanation. I'll add something if i find out what the hell it is. Fresheneesz (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I found these sources. They all refer to the same non-rigorous LLNL chart.

It doesn't look like a real term. Fresheneesz (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

×←21:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)21:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)21:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)21:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)21:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)21:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)21:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)21:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</ref></ref>

trolololololoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.88.19 (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Energy efficiency progress graph

This graph is essentially meaningless, as it has no y-axis title. If you were to assume it was a graph of efficiency against time, it shows a drop from perfect efficiency (impossible) the opposite of its description. Is it based on a level of energy use in the EU in a given year as a baseline, and is it per head? It needs updating or removing. 213.31.11.107 Raisedonadiet (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As there are no objections, I removed it. Raisedonadiet (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This graph has reappeared, but is still meaningless. It needs more explanation at least, if not re-drawing. Raisedonadiet (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I also deleted it today. I agree that it should not be present either. --71.82.68.88 (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Global Warming/climate-change spin, and the article is about EFFICIENCY

I believe the topic of CO2 emissions and/or climate change impacts regarding home or industrial energy efficiency is outside the scope of this article and is controversial, therefore should be eliminated from the article *in-entirety. The introduction is poorly written - Efficiency should be defined early in the article, possibly as a formula, such as consumption/cost. Jumping into solutions without discussing the problem is bad journalism. One could read that buying CFLs (as indicated in the intro) will ulimately "save the planet". C'mon. This article smacks of too much politics. --71.82.68.88 (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

At the very top of the article is a link to Energy efficiency (disambiguation). You may find what you are looking for there... Johnfos (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Why not just call it energy efficiency

If that was the original name - why was it changed to 'Efficient energy use' ? - Rod57 (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Improving the article

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

FacultiesIntact (talk · contribs) / Efficient Energy Use Efficient Energy Use This user has declared a connection. (COI declared at User:FacultiesIntact)

I've been working on edits to the Building design, Vehicles, and Alternative fuels sections in my sandbox with the intent of adding to the content we currently have. I expanded the section on LEED to give more coverage, split the vehicles sections into subsections for automobiles and aircraft, and added images to alternative fuels. Time permitting, can anyone take a look at my proposed edits? Any feedback is always appreciated.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I only had a quick look but your expansion from Vehicles to Transportation looks helpful. - Rod57 (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Propose split and rename to clarify

This article has much about general principles but also talks about a few specific national programmes. I think the article should be split into Energy efficiency programmes/initiatives (which can summarise what various nations and organisations are proposing and doing) and Energy efficiency principles before it becomes unmanageable. Comments ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I have started a level 2 section titled 'Energy efficiency by country'. That could well be split off to be a new page Energy efficiency by country. So I basically agree with the suggestion. -- RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 25 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. It seems there's no obvious consensus here. After relisting, the only comments have been opposes. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

– per WP:COMMONNAME. Furthermore, I'd argue that the term actually isn't ambiguous, but that supposed "other meanings" are in fact subtopics, with the exception of Energy conservation which is a related topic rather than a synonym. Even if that wasn't the case, this article clearly constitutes WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so should not be disambiguated, neither by a disambiguator in brackets, nor per WP:NATURALDIS. -- PanchoS (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose – While at first glance I sympathized with the nominator's arguments, after some reading I saw the validity of separating several meanings, as a cursory look into the history and focus of each target article demonstrates. The "energy efficiency" term is indeed ambiguous and this page is justified. The only alternative would be to somehow merge all target pages into a giant broad-topic article, which would quickly beg to be split into more digestible chunks again.

However I would suggest changing the hierarchy of articles thus:

first comes the energy conversion efficiency describing the efficiency of various energy conversion processes, then fuel efficiency and energy efficiency in transportation as subtopics of that concerning combustion engines,
then efficient energy use, i.e. efforts to reduce the energy consumed to provide a particular service (e.g. lighting),
and finally energy conservation, i.e. efforts to preserve energy by avoiding waste (e.g. home insulation).

This suggested breakdown would be more respectful of the actual contents of target articles.

Incidentally I removed a spurious promotional link in the See also section. — JFG ^talk 10:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Support - I think this is a reasonable request. The main two other articles are energy conversion efficiency and energy conservation. The former, I don't think is every called "energy efficiency", while the second is I think a different concept if [1] is to be believed. The subject covered at efficient energy use appears to be the PTOPIC for energy efficiency. — Amakuru (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. The present article structure has worked well for many years. It was decided on after much discussion a long time ago. I don't see any reason to change. Johnfos (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose per both arguments above. Dicklyon (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Weak oppose per JFG. That is not the only way to deal with the matter, but simply moving this one to "energy efficiency" is not going to be a net positive. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Efficient energy use. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)