Talk:Renewable energy

Intro image (graph)
I am afraid that the introductory image is not very appropriate for the article - the graph is only about electricity, and the problem is that it is about "power capacity." This means for renewables, the peak capacity is very different from the peak capacity of fossil production. Jirka Dl (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The graphic shows how the capacity of renewable energy is growing, and for fossil fuels is waning. I don't understand the meaning or relevance of your sentence re "peak capacity". — RCraig09 (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @RCraig09, I am afraid that there is a huge difference in "power capacity" versus "power production" - or "electricity production" - compare this graph with "electricity production" graph here or "energy production" graph here (use "Relative" box to see the share. Our graph looks too much optimistic. Especially for FV - in my country (Czech Republic) the average real kW production of FV panel is about 10 % of its power capacity. The graph is correct (but in description it should be mentioned that the graph is about electricity, not primary power), but I do not think that it should be as first on the page. Do not take my comments wrong, I am in favor of renewables very much :-) Jirka Dl (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:Jirka Dl. I have added a sentence of explanation to the chart's caption. But I will also look for a better chart. I have created several renewable energy charts, shown in the "Alternative/renewable/green energy/transition" section of my Wikimedia Commons user page, which you are welcome to view. — RCraig09 (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Jirka Dl, I've created a new chart, File:1990- Renewable energy production, by source.svg, that shows production. I think this chart takes care of your concerns.
 * Separately, I'm puzzled by the chart in the section "Renewables break new records but growth slows" in this Ember page. It shows capacity (GW) as much less than generation (TW). That representation seems backward. — RCraig09 (talk) 05:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Watch out: Gigawatts->giga+"watts" measure power (in this case "theoretical installed "capacity" of the plants). While Terawatt-hour->tera+"watt-hour" is a measure of energy (how much energy the plants actually produce basically). &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 10:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @RCraig09 The "production" graph is quite clear (didn't check if units are accurate) and shows the exponential growth of renewables (although it doesn't show how they compare to non renewables). However there is another imprecision: energy and electric energy are not the same thing. Energy = electric energy (electricity) + other forms of energy for transport etc. The source of the data refers to electricity while the graph talks about energy. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 11:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

— I'm not following exactly which change(s) you think should be made (I assume it's the "...production" graphic shown here). Is it  ? — Pinging User:Jirka Dl for comments. — RCraig09 (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes ”Renewable electricity production” would make sense. Consider that graph does not include all renewable energy: something like Solar water heating is a kind of renewable energy which is not “electricity”. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 08:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Version 2, with revised title, has been uploaded. Thanks for your input. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I don’t see it yet in the article though. It still says “energy” &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You'll have to Bypass your cache when you refresh the screen. — RCraig09 (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've aligned the caption. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 23:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Possible additional charts
Should we also include the "Capacity" graph in the article somewhere? And should we consider showing all other electricity sources in the Production graph? We might consider a graph showing "all renewables" together vs. other sources (oil, coal, gas, nuclear etc. separated) to show the relative share? &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 11:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You might want to look at the ~29 renewable energy charts I've uploaded, shown on my Wikimedia Commons page (expand the collapsible text). There are already some "capacity" charts in this article; maybe more charts are appropriate. — RCraig09 (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 201 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Yl10506 (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, is it okay for me to edit the conversion error under drivers and benefit section?
It's supposed to be 35.6 degrees Fahrenheit Cherrycoke5 (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry I cannot see that error - maybe you or someone else already fixed it. In general the answer is yes - see BOLD, revert, discuss cycle Chidgk1 (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Scope of the article?
Do you think Passive daytime radiative cooling is in scope?

Do you think hydrogen is in scope? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I think they are outside of the scope and have removed those two sections now. EMsmile (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

More excerpts?
Should we excerpt more here, either from main articles or from Sustainable energy which is a featured article, for example wind power? Might make it easier to keep up to date. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I would support this suggestion. There is probably also a fair bit of content that should be moved to sub-articles. EMsmile (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Geographies of Energy and Sustainability
— Assignment last updated by Juniper37 (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Correction
Solve the error in reference 3, please Graph8389 (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I can't see the error in ref 3? EMsmile (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Needs a bit of culling? - Moving photovoltaic development?
I think the article is on the long side (50 kB (7750 words) "readable prose size"). Who has ideas in which sections some culling and condensing, or moving to sub-articles, could take place? For example, one section could be the one on solar power which is probably a bit too detailed now. Thoughts? EMsmile (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @EMsmile and anyone else
 * Perhaps we could delete or move out the photovoltaic development subsection? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes please. Move it to one of the sub-articles, I'd say. I've also added the section size table at the top of the talk page now. It helps to identify which sections are perhaps too big and dominant compared to others. The section on hydropower also seems too long. EMsmile (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Chidgk1, and propose to move the entire section "photovoltaic development" to Photovoltaic system and probably add it to the lead (and main text) there. It seems more up to date than the text at Photovoltaic system which is older. Pinging User:Tserton as they recently worked on this section? EMsmile (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi EMsmile! I definitely agree that the article could use some liberal trimming. There are bits and pieces of the "Photovoltaic development" section that are perhaps excessive detail for a general article about renewable energy, but I think there is lower-hanging fruit elsewhere in the article to cull. PV is one of the three main sources of renewable energy, and by far the fastest growing one, so I would argue it deserves a bit more space. I would instead start by significantly consolidating the bioenergy and geothermal sections. And some of the more speculative technologies could be reduced to a few sentences each, with content moved to the respective main articles if it's not already reproduced there. Tserton (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks for your trimming work! The article is now at 46 kB which is better. Its balance of topics is better now (see the section size table at the top to check). I've removed some detail on hydropower as I felt that section had become too long compared to the other sections. - What do you think of the lead section, could you give that also a review and check if it's a good summary of the main aspects of the article? EMsmile (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks likewise for your improvements to the article! Don't be bashful about copyediting the sections I've revamped, too, even if that means moving or removing some of my text. I often find it tricky to judge due weight with technical topics like the ones in some of this article's sections. As for the lead, I actually think a lot of it could do with being re-written. I would focus on what/why/how, in that order (so a brief description/definition, mention of climate change, and an overview of the most important technologies)...and then perhaps a paragraph on the challenges facing renewables. Open to suggestions, of course! Tserton (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Great, always fun to have someone to collaborate with! Regarding the lead, I've copied your comments to the section below so that we have it all in one place. Have replied there. EMsmile (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Improvements to the lead
I've done a bit of work on the lead. My original intention was only to work on readability aspects. But in the end, I also re-arranged the content a bit. I took out some of the number-heavy content and added instead some new content, e.g. by looking at the table of content to see which sections were not yet summarised. For example, there was no info in the lead on the ongoing debates nor on the emerging technologies which I have added now.

I am still not so happy with it: the lead is now a bit too long (519 words), perhaps bring it down to something in the range of 450 to 500? Also, the readability score is still quite low, many sentences are in red when using the readability script. Perhaps User:Efbrazil is interested to help with this lead as well, after we have been working on the lead of sustainable energy... EMsmile (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As for the lead, I actually think a lot of it could do with being re-written. I would focus on what/why/how, in that order (so a brief description/definition, mention of climate change, and an overview of the most important technologies)...and then perhaps a paragraph on the challenges facing renewables. Open to suggestions, of course! Tserton (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead does need some work but when you work on it please ensure it doesn't become a "new story on its own" but still remains as a summary of the article. It should try where possible to pick up the main content of the main section headings. And there should be nothing in the lead that is not also in the main text. A summary of the challenges (or debates) section would be very good (I've already tried to do that; it's currently in the last two paragraph).
 * I also think leads should include citations (I know this is regarded as optional; but due to the usage of excerpts in future, it's better if the lead does include citations). Also keep in mind WP:LEAD in case you are not aware of that manual of style (you probably know it as you've been around on Wikipedia for a long time!). Lead length could be 450 to 500 words, I'd say.
 * I think the first paragraph of the lead is actually fairly good. EMsmile (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)