Talk:Renewable energy/Archive 3

Definition 2
"Renewable energy is energy derived from resources that are regenerative or for all practical purposes can not be depleted."

There is no such thing as a renewable energy source. Basic thermodynamics prohibits it. Energy can only be used once, it cannot be renewed, although it can be replaced with other energy.

The very notion of renewable energy is a fraud. 67.164.78.216 17:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Rich


 * You are creating your own definitions. Look above for the definitions from the International Energy Agency.  Skyemoor 03:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The word -renewable- was defined already and no energy source can be renewed. Energy can be used only once. Solar energy is not renewable, it's just a very large very long lasting single use cell energy source (so to speak). Maybe you could say "non-fossil fuel", and that would give the impression you want, but there ain't nothing renewable anywhere in this article. 67.164.78.216 22:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Rich


 * If you want to convince the IEA that they are wrong, we'll wait for the results and update accordingly. Skyemoor 16:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see IEA's authority to re-define existing words, perhaps you can show me where they get this authority? 67.164.78.216 22:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Rich


 * They used 2 words, 'renewable' and 'energy', which together form a meaning directly related to both. And yes, the IEA is considered an authority on the subject; if you believe you have superior credentials, please present them. I don't see what is so hard to understand here.  Skyemoor 18:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think the sun (the source from which all existing energy sources except nuclear derive) can be renewed I think you need to write it up in the journals, you may win a Nobel prize. No energy is renewable or can be renewed, it can be used exactly one time. Solar energy is mostly wasted (or maybe unused), but the flux on the earth, except as interrupted by night or weather, is pretty constant. But I think all of it that hits the earth feeds the environment (and things like wind). Solar power is not renewed the next day however, different H was fused to HE to provide that energy, and eventually the fusion products can no longer be fused and release energy, it's not a renewable process. Eventually it will slow, with unfortunate consequences for the earth.


 * I think the essence of all this is as I stated above, that the other sources are NON-FOSSIL FUEL. Now I don't think we have accurate accountings of the costs and environmental effects of these NON-FOSSIL FUEL energy sources, windmills kill birds (including endangered species) and produce low vibrations that disturb people's sleep kilometers away (and no doubt they have the same effect on animals), these are just a few things that are known. And all of them but nuclear and the tides are intermittent, which rather limits their usefulness. I really need my refrigerator on 24/7. Perhaps you think I'm being too picky.


 * Energy itself is not renewable, of all kinds. There is a conceptual problem with this usage, as well as a problem with accuracy. Arguments from authority (not that your authority addresses the issue you answered) are a logical fallacy and miss the issue clean. I expect that this issue will never be addressed BTW, but I'd love to be proven wrong. The law (at least in the US) calls for accuracy in labeling, we don't have it here. If you can tell me *what* is being renewed in any of the sources in the article, I'd appreciate it. 67.164.78.216 22:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Rich


 * The term has a widespread, commonly understood meaning, which follows the conventions called out in WP:NC;

Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

This is justified by the following principle:

Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists. Skyemoor 18:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Renewable" may be a translation fault. Physically speaking "sustainable energy" oder "regenerative energy" (to be read as "energy from ~ source") should be the correct definition. On adopting this to German language, it seems that some ignorants translated it to "erneuerbare Energie" (i think, i am allowed to speak so, since i am German). The re-translation to English language, perhaps due to the German efforts on sustainable energies, will give the term "renewable".

Gilbert Brands 12:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

2.6 Reliability
The opening paragraph of this section, which starts with "Current electrical power consumption..." does not seem to be about reliability at all, and I suggest it be deleted. Johnfos 10:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Have made this change now. Johnfos 05:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

1.5 Biofuel
It seems that Biofuels are recieving a disproportionately large amount of space in this article. (I know they are important but so are many other areas.) We have referred readers to the main Biofuel article and I would suggest that what is here could be edited to a more readable and useful form. Johnfos 06:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Have made these changes now. Johnfos 22:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It might also be added that biofuels like ethanol in the US are produced from a food (and feed) crop, corn. And creating this biofuel has changed the supply and demand picture of corn, in fact, corn prices have doubled, and the food (and feed) supply has shrunk. The immediate effect of doubling corn prices not only affects the affordability of corn as a food, but as we have not yet added the animals still growing to the food chain, when they do go up for sale they will necessarily cost more. The costs of all foods is going to go up, don't know by how much, but for those living on subsistence wages, even in the US, it will be a hard blow. In other parts of the world, I expect even worse consequences. When staple foods are no longer grown to produce biofuels, starvation is not far behind. 67.164.78.216 23:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Rich

"Concluding comment"?
Is this an essay or an encyclopedia article? — Omegatron 21:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am interested to hear what people think about this section, and am happy for changes to be made accordingly.Johnfos 22:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever one calls it ...
ALL energy available to man other than nuclear (fission or fusion -- fission includes geothermal) ultimately derives from the sun, currently or in the (distant) past. Solar energy from the distant past became stored in fossil fuels and is utilized by man via one or another technique of mining followed usually by combustion.

That energy which is NOT so stored and which can be obtained without mining its source -- that is, in more or less real time, used roughly at the same rate as it becomes available -- is the subject of this article.

The concept needs a clear unambiguous name, acceptable to both lay and professionals -- say, "real-time, non-mined", but that is a bit clumsy, to say the least. RTNM ?? No, I don't think so, not clear.

Maybe there is a good German word to fit the bill, a charged word like "Lebensraum" or "Realpolitik", which at least suggest their meanings to at least some degree. Allenwoll 01:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

News Links on Renewable Energy
The following moved here from my Talk Page - I assume the anon user wants to discuss this article and not me personally --Nigelj 22:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nigel. You reverted my removal of 3 external links to news articles on the Renewable Energy page and said "News links are relevant because significant renewable energy propjects are newsworthy." However, if this were the criteria for inclusion of external links, then we are going to have hundreds of external links to news stories about significant renewable energy projects. Why not just include a link to a site which provides both current and archives of renewable energy news such as Renewable Energy News Also, why should these 3 news articles appear first before the link to the National Renewable Energy Lab? Surely, a news article no matter how newsworthy should bump the National Renewable Energy Lab. This was the secondary reason I removed these links since they appear to be spam links.--67.176.26.111 20:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi 67.176.26.111. You didn't quote the second half of my edit comment where I added, "Please replace with or add more recent links, but do not just blank out relevant content."  Consider my humble invitation to include, 'please also feel free to rearrange links into alphabetical order, publication date order, order of importance of the author (in your opinion), etc'. The only thing I object to is when people just decide that they don't personally like some current selection of worldwide published facts, research and reports and so just delete it, so that others may not have the benefit of other people's research and hard work.


 * If you think that the first article, dated February 23, 2007 or the second, from July 11th, 2006 about the 337 kWp solar roof are out of date, I beg to disagree. We don't normally accept blogs as citable sources, but write-ups such as the second example do make perfect background and further reading. The third article is by the BBC, who probably don't need to spam WP to get their readership.


 * Feel free to contribute, prune, sort, update, augment, rearrange, add captions... --Nigelj 22:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Renewable energy graphic
This graphic needs to be changed. It needs to be made clearer what it shows a percentage of. (Joules of generation?) Armyroute 09:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to have more images like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_renewable_energy_2005a.png by years, so people would be able to see how it evolved. Also, a table with percentages of energy resources by years would be very nice, a table for global and other tables for each country Dreamcow 17:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Renewable Energy Resources
I realize that for good reason the Wikipedia discourages placing external links on articles. However, some visitors may find the following links useful. I will leave it up to administrator(s) of this page to publish the following links if you consider them relevant to this page.


 * Alternative Energy - Articles, discussions, headlines news and videos about renewable energy technology.
 * Renewable Energy Directory - Thousands of quality energy-related websites carefully organized and well-moderated directory. Includes a blog with website and video reviews.

Alex Ramon 03:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

First sentence
The first sentence of the article: "Renewable Energy is energy derived from resources that are regenerative or for all practical purposes cannot be depleted." Is it just me, or is the grammar really weird in the italics? 154.20.151.165 03:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Potenial table
The table in the "Potential" section of the article has a footnote in the table. Shouldn't it be outside, below the table? 154.20.151.165 03:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Onsite renewable technologies
What is intended by this section? I saw that it included only US info so I added some additional information, only to see that it is largely repeated below. The heading does not seem to make any sense. The remaining sections cover the same subject by technology not by location. I will remove the second part of my last edit. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Th Onsite section follows on from this para in the previous section...


 * However, when it comes to renewable energy systems and PV, it is not just large systems that matter. Building-integrated photovoltaics or "onsite" PV systems have the advantage of being matched to end use energy needs in terms of scale.  So the energy is supplied close to where it is needed.

So the Onsite section is about renewable energy systems which are located on or near the buildings which they supply with energy. These are matched to end use needs in terms of scale, which is one of the criteria for a soft energy technology. Feel free to clarify and expand the text as needed. -- Johnfos 20:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Understood and apologies for not getting this earlier. I have done what I can to make this more clear in the opening sentence. I can't think of any Scottish examples on a large scale, although Gigha and Findhorn are small communities which are net exporters of electricity from wind. The are quite a few 'wind-to-heat' projects in remoter areas for village halls and the like. The CIS Tower in Manchester could presumably be used as UK example. How large is large? If Edison, New Jersey only has solar water heating it surely can't be a substantial proportion of on-site energy use? Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of the existing examples are not that big, e.g. Chicago with a 10kW PV system. The are certainly examples in the UK on that sort of scale. Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Growth
What is the course of the percentage of renewable energy vs the total energy consumed? (currently cited at 14%) Is it growing over the last years? How much, how fast? I think the readers will be greatly benefited from such information. The article currently contains a bar graph for just the wind-mills. Are there any data around for the total? Can we compile them by adding those of the various types of renewable energy? When are we expected to reach 100% (if at all)? NikoSilver 10:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Energy Information Administration, DOE tracks growth. See also World Primary Energy Production. I would project that by 2050 we will see very little non-renewable used. There will not be a lot of oil left by then.  A lot of coal and uranium will still be available, but from a social/health/economic cost it is unlikely that the earth will stand for either being used once a cheaper cleaner alternative is available (photovoltaics).  And of course by 2050 the nuclear fusion folks will be fiddling around with their test facilities, although it is highly unlikely that technology will ever compete favorably with solar here on earth. "The earth has a well engineered nuclear fusion reactor located a safe distance from major population centers, 93 million miles." 199.125.109.57 18:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's it? 43 years to go? How much harm can we do by then? How did you come to this projection? We can't publish original research, so we need someone to have arrived to the same results. The second table you linked shows a substantial growth of renewable energy percentage since 1970, but has anyone actually made a projection? In any case, even if we don't find such projections, we can use that data (if global and conclusive) to give an idea (or better a graph) of the past, showing the course. The readers can decide how to project this in the future... NikoSilver 22:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A lot of our policy makers are very blind to trends. The articles Hubbert peak theory and peak oil and this curve  is what I was referring to.  Even coal is not as plentiful as we are often led to believe - China is building a new coal fired electrical plant every week, no make that two plants every week, and since we are right at the peak of peak oil we can expect a shift toward coal which will make it hit  a similar peak sooner than previously forcast. Fortunately solar is hugely abundant, and is what we need to be switching over to for both electricity and most transportation.


 * How much harm can we do? Global warming will be affecting us for centuries. 199.125.109.45 17:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the global warming article is where I'm coming from. I suppose that given the necessary energy, there must be a reverse procedure for removing CO2 from the atmosphere and turning it back into coal and oxygen, like the plants do using the sun and photosynthesis. So renewable energy must better exceed 100%. On an irrelevant issue, I'm sure you've heard this question before, but WP:WHY? I think we need your help here... NikoSilver 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks but no thanks. For now I will do what I can without purchasing an account. 199.125.109.64 22:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In case you didn't know, it's free.


 * In case you did know, just send me 50 bucks and I'll mail you the username and password of your choice! NikoSilver 22:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Whats this business about "renewables" being 14% of the total?? Which of the references can back that claim up?


 * Depends who you ask. Our article on World energy resources and consumption shows about 9%. — Omegatron 00:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Importance rating
The physics and energy project templates ask for an article importance. Choices in descending order are Top, High, Mid, and Low. Here is a suggestion:


 * Physics - Mid


 * Energy - Top

199.125.109.64 01:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with that. -- Johnfos 01:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd argue both top, as it is one of the most important issues of our century. Physicist wikipedians are needed here. NikoSilver 20:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I have a degree in physics and renewable energy does not come up often in the study of physics. You can always make it Top and see if anyone changes it. 199.125.109.20 21:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph rework
The first sentence, "Renewable energy flows involve natural phenomena such as sunlight, wind, tides and geothermal heat," does not include a definition of renewable energy. Guide_to_writing_better_articles suggests giving a definition when it's practical. It also leaves out biomass and hydroelectric power, which are the most common forms of renewable energy.

My suggestion, which was reverted, was the following:


 * Renewable energy is energy from sources which can be replenished in a short period of time. Primary sources include water currents, biomass, sunlight, wind, tides, and geothermal heat. An estimated 14% of total world energy consumption came from renewable sources in 2005, dominated by large-scale hydropower and firewood-fueled biomass heat.

It includes a definition in sentence one, gives primary sources in sentence two, and provides worldwide usage and primary components in sentence three. I don't have a strong opinion about what the definition is, but I do think there should be a definition, or an attempt along with an explanation that the term lacks a clear definition. (The IEA phrases it in the existing citation as energy "derived from natural processes that are replenished constantly.") The current paragraph is this:


 * Renewable energy flows involve natural phenomena such as sunlight, wind, tides and geothermal heat. Renewable energy technologies range from solar power, wind power and hydroelectricity through to biomass and biofuels for transportation. About 13 percent of primary energy comes from renewables and the technical potential for their use is very large.

As I said, I think the first sentence contains important omissions of renewable sources; I also didn't see anything about renewable energy flows in the cited IEA source. The second paragraph fills in other types of energies, but omits non-electric hydropower and geothermal power, duplicates the essence of the first sentence, and seems awkwardly worded. In the third sentence, the term "renewables" is not defined, and the "technical potential" being "very large" seems too vague. I thought the inclusion of hydro and biomass as the primary sources was useful to explain the major components of that 13% (or 14%) of world energy, as it ties in and summarizes the accompanying pie chart. -Agyle 00:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agyle, why don't we go with your first paragraph. No problem. -- Johnfos 10:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The definition should be renewable energy, not renewable energy 'flows'. Also, the definition should be what the meaning renewable energy 'is', not what it 'involves'.  Your definition is better, but calling it replenishable 'in a short period of time' sounds a little strange. How about: "'Renewable energy' is energy from sources which can be replenished and are sustainable"? -- Ajnosek 18:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, "short period of time" is a bit strange. Wording was from the source cited, and is a simple way to distinguish oil or peat, replenishable over a long time, from corn or trees. Sustainability addresses that, but becomes ambiguous with arguably unsustainable farming or forestry practices. (E.g. using fossil fuels for fertilizers). I'm not sure that ambiguity exists in the commonly understood definition. I'd at least suggest "can be sustainably replenished", rather than "are sustainable." Some perspectives via dictionary.com:


 * renewable energy based on Random House Unabridged Dictionary: "any naturally occurring, theoretically inexhaustible source of energy, as biomass, solar, wind, tidal, wave, and hydroelectric power, that is not derived from fossil or nuclear fuel."


 * renewable resource from Webster's: "any natural resource that can replenish itself naturally over time, as wood or solar energy; also called renewable energy, [renewable energy resource], renewable natural resource," Princeton's Wordnet: "any natural resource (as wood or solar energy) that can be replenished naturally with the passage of time," American Heritage: "Any resource, such as wood or solar energy, that can or will be replenished naturally in the course of time."


 * renewable from American Heritage Science Dictionary: "Relating to a natural resource, such as solar energy, water, or wood, that is never used up or that can be replaced by new growth. Resources that are dependent on regrowth can sometimes be depleted beyond the point of renewability, as when the deforestation of land leads to desertification or when a commercially valuable species is harvested to extinction. Pollution can also make a renewable resource such as water unusable in a particular location. Compare nonrenewable."


 * -Agyle 21:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The ancient nuclear debate
At the top of this page is a link to an archive called "The great nuclear debate". Back in 2004-5 a few editors tried very hard to argue here that nuclear power stations were a source of 'renewable energy' and so should be given some prominence in this article. Every now and again this argument is resurrected on the basis that a user believes that he won the day back in those years, and so no-one has the right to remove or shorten his nuclear section henceforth. I bring all this up because I noticed that at 23:35, 29 August 2007, User:Omegatron has again inserted some of the old text with the comment, "restore blanked content *again*, add quote". I think that there has been an ongoing consensus here for many months that the small mention we have of nuclear technology in the article now gives due weight to such an extreme minority viewpoint. I have reverted the large-scale re-insertion. --Nigelj 19:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ??? So politicians like Bush diverting money from renewable plants into nuclear plants is not notable?
 * No one's going to believe that this section is being blanked because of "undue weight" or policy violations; it's being deleted by anons in a biased manner to try to hide things they personally don't like. — Omegatron 02:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it is not being blanked. However we all know that only a total moron thinks that nuclear should be called a renewable resource.  No one is going to win their case no matter how many pages they take up with their stupid arguments, so don't even bother trying.  Nuclear is being given due weight as a POV, and that is all it is, nothing more. 199.125.109.98 05:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to be pedantic, nothing is renewable. Q  T C 05:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not even library books? You mean they were lying when they told me I could renew it? The reference just added has a good definition of renewable energy - "Renewable energy resources are naturally replenished in a relatively short period of time. They include biomass, hydropower, geothermal energy, wind energy, and solar energy."199.125.109.98 06:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, like I said if you want to get pedantic, nothing is renewable They'll all run out. Q  T C 06:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You and I both know that you are being silly. My "renewable" library book "runs out" too. Read the quote. 199.125.109.98 06:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not being silly, I'm purely pointing out that long-term nothing is renewable. I'd suggest reading pedantic —Preceding unsigned comment added by OverlordQ (talk • contribs) 06:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And removing sourced content without consensus will be reverted. Q  T C 06:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The only thing that needs to remain are the links to nuclear power and nuclear fission, a statement that neither are renewable, and a reference that explains why someone has the pov that it is renewable. Nothing else is appropriate in this article.  It is like saying oh wait, we need to add 4,000 paragraphs about chalk to the article on coal because someone who works in a coal plant uses chalk. It is totally out of place.  Make your arguments elsewhere.  This is an encyclopedia, not a debate. 199.125.109.98 06:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please remember that this is not a discussion forum. You can argue about the subject matter elsewhere.  This is for discussing the article itself, and this content's place in the article.


 * The content in this section is notable, neutral, and reliably sourced. Please don't remove it again without good reason.  (Offending your personal point of view is not a good reason.) — Omegatron 02:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's such a shame that the open philosophy of Wikipedia can allow one dogged, single-issue campaigner to harass their personal point of view past every sensible consensus. Most normal people eventually lose interest in arguing against a brick wall and go and do something more interesting with their lives. Then the campaigners get to distort the articles based on flimsy or non-notable 'evidence'. Bye for now. Have fun. --Nigelj 17:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a similar problem on the Solar power page. Renewable energy is a special class of energy defined by being naturally replenished. That's the basic idea of the term. I don't think thermodynamics/physics should necessarily be employed when examining renewable energy because it's an idea. The idea of the term is not the combination of the strict criteria of determining renewability smashed with the science of examining energy. There are no criteria for renewable energy which define it mathematically. The term Renewable energy is not the sum of it's parts. It's an idea. What turns a can into a cane, a man into a mane? Words are not a sum of letters. Mrshaba 01:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my recent addition, which seems to be a little controversial, I was not trying to present any point about solar energy. If I was, it would have gone in the solar energy section. For the purposes of responsible planning on any time scale relevant to foreseeable generations of humanity, solar power will continue to be available without significant change - that's quite correct. But my point concerned nuclear power - it is just as, every bit, as sustainable, and "renewable". AWeishaupt (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame
It's a shame to see a good editor like Nigelj being put off by a POV warrior. An edit of mine was reverted by the same person on 11 September and now we have two separate sections which discuss the issue of whether geothermal energy is a renewable resource. We have this early on in the article:


 * This means that geothermal energy is not really a renewable source of energy at all; it just happens to be a very long-lived source. The government of Iceland states: "It should be stressed that the geothermal resource is not strictly renewable in the same sense as the hydro resource."[25]

And then we have this later on:


 * Although geothermal sites are capable of providing heat for many decades, eventually specific locations may cool down. It is likely that in these locations, the system was designed too large for the site, since there is only so much energy that can be stored and replenished in a given volume of earth. Some interpret this as meaning a specific geothermal location can undergo depletion, and question whether geothermal energy is truly renewable. The government of Iceland states "it should be stressed that the geothermal resource is not strictly renewable in the same sense as the hydro resource." It estimates that Iceland's geothermal energy could provide 1700 MW for over 100 years, compared to the current production of 140 MW.[25] The International Energy Agency classifies geothermal power as renewable.[58]

It's a pity to see minority views being repeated in the same article and receiving undue weight... -- Johnfos 02:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

research...
"Best Energy Strategy: Small, Green And Local, Experts Say" --Emesee 06:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Europe
EU leaders reached agreement in principle in March that 20 percent of the bloc's energy should be produced from renewable fuels by 2020 as part of its drive to cut emissions of carbon dioxide, blamed in part for global warming. Renewables now account for less than 7 percent of the EU energy mix. In a special report, the European Parliament said that to give the legislation teeth, it should contain binding renewable energy targets for particular sectors -- electricity, heating and transport -- rather than just a general goal. The parliament said it would resist any attempt to treat nuclear energy as a substitute for renewables.

USA
- This text above suddenly appeared near the start of the article, and while I applaud the enthusiasm behind it, I really don't think it has a place here. This article is already 69k long and we should be looking to split articles off from it rather than create major new sections. We already have List of renewable energy topics by country which deals with renewable energy geographically and I would have thought that it, and its many sub-articles, should give adequate coverage. Johnfos 10:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not by country. European Union is not a country. On the other hand, we could include information about general legislation about renewable energy (it is not about wind, solar and so, but for ALL renewable energies).
 * "Renewable energy technologies are sometimes criticised for being unreliable or unsightly, yet the market is growing for many forms of renewable energy" can be in the main article, but adding data about general renewables (information about wind, solar and so would be include in "Main renewable energy technologies " by technology type. And include less information about concrete renewable energy technologies, which can be included in the specialized articles. Specialized information must be included in specialized articles and general renewables information, including general legislation (as the EU Parliament resolutions) must be included in the main article (and accesorily we can create Renewable energy legislation and incentives .--Nopetro 11:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead Cleanup
Renewable energy effectively utilizes natural resources such as sunlight, wind, tides and geothermal heat, which are naturally replenished. Renewable energy technologies range from solar power, wind power, and hydroelectricity to biomass and biofuels for transportation. About 13 percent of primary energy comes from renewables, with most of this coming from traditional biomass like wood-burning. Hydropower is the next largest source, providing 2-3%, and modern technologies like geothermal, wind, solar, and marine energy together produce less than 1% of total world energy demand.[1] The technical potential for their use is very large, exceeding all other readily available sources. Instead of the above, I propose beginning with a definition of Renewable energy--Keer lls ton 02:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I have recently found it helpful to do google definition searches such as "define:Renewable energy".  May I suggest, however, that when the definitions are added that they come from (reliable) dictionaries? -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 06:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

External Link for AlternativeEnergy.com
I made the mistake of posting my link to AlternativeEnergy.com without discussing it here. AlternativeEnergy.com is a definite resource that would be of great interest to people interested in this subject. The site is a Social Network with access to a tremendous amount of news, research, and important links to motivate people towards a path of deploying Alternative Energy. This is a vital interest in our time and this site is meant to be a portal to this new era. A review at Killer Startups recently called it a A Portal for Saving the World. The purpose of adding this link to Wikipedia is to be a service to the internet user. It is understood that there is no SEO benefit because of the NOFOLLOW links. Dougschi (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * External links policy states that Links to social networking sites or aggregated results pages are Links normally to be avoided. --Hu12 (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I read the 'normally' to be avoided. I could understand why that would be the policy. However, AlternativeEnergy.com is a genuine resource. It is not just a social network or aggregator. We have unique content that is kept very current. We have done our own research and more is coming. We have our own videos and more are coming. We are dedicated to advancing the cause of AlternativeEnergy. The policy says: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." I believe that AlternativeEnergy.com does provide a resource. One such resource is to find people to communicate with who can provide first hand assistance and advice to propel AlternativeEnergy forward. Is there a panel that convenes to finalize determinations? If so, I would like to present before this panel. Thank you. Dougschi (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote AlternativeEnergy.com. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Your contributions to wikipedia under Dougschi, consist entirely of adding external links to AlternativeEnergy.com. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be AlternativeEnergy.com related only. Please do not continue adding links to your own websites to Wikipedia. It has become apparent that your account is only being used for self-promotion.  Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote AlternativeEnergy.com right?


 * Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.--Hu12 (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly true about self-promotion. I can't argue. However, there is a much greater purpose than self-promotion. Moreover, if you look back at the entire history of comments, it is not ALL related to AlternativeEnergy.com. I will look into DMOZ. I would still like to know if there is an independent wikipedia panel that can evaluate these requests ... that will not disallow based on the the self-promotion aspect and may come to the conclusion that AlternativeEnergy.com is a valuable resource.Dougschi (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I just took a look at 2 of the current links on the site. One is to a DOE press release that is from Dec 2006 and another is to a BBC news story that is almost 6 months old. AlternativeEnergy.com has many many of its own stories and roundups and its own videos. If I were to post a link to a specific story, would that be ok? It is preferable to to post to AlternativeEnergy.com. That is a much better (and more current) resource than at least some of the External Links currently posted.Dougschi (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Pointing out that a link exists in an article doesn't prove that the link in question should also exist. Wikipedia's fundamental purpose is to create an encyclopedia of content. External links are detrimental to this goal, they lead the reader away, to content that is controlled by others. Some links can be a service to the reader, but they cannot improve the encyclopedia itself. Yes, the internet is full of good material, but Wikipedia is not a directory to that content.--Hu12 (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I may have a go at the organization of the external links some time later. Industry sites I think are one of the few kinds of EL that actually do fit Wikipedia policy. I will evaluate AlternativeEnergy.com later, if there are other similar links in there, and if this is really high profile I can see it going in - I'm not sure how much better a news article on a tidal plant in England is. The important thing is that they make sense to have and are useful to the reader. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 18:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not looking to disparage other links. I am merely trying to flesh out a policy that is clearly not consistently applied. I am certain that AlternativeEnergy.com is currently and will certainly be a good resource. Dougschi (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Those probably need to go, too. The fact that we haven't gotten around to it, yet, does not mean that we have some obligation to have your site. Plenty of links exist that probably shouldn't, conversly many links don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that a link exists in an article doesn't prove that the link in question should also exist. Are you here to improve Wikipedia -- or just here to promote your site AlternativeEnergy.com?--Hu12 (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm here to promote Alternative Energy and to promote people's education and action in this vitally important area. As I indicated above, I am trying to flesh out (fully understand) the policies. As you say, there are likely sites that are missing and those that don't belong. I believe AlternativeEnergy.com does belong. I do have a conflict of interest. I believe that if the site were discussed by completely independent people they would conclude that the site strongly merits inclusion on Wikipedia. I don't know the process by which such an independent decision is reached. I also have no problem abstaining from advocating for inclusion but I do feel that it is my right to advocate for an independent and substantive review to make an objective determination.Dougschi (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not involved yet in this discussion. This link does not belong. Not particularly notable.--Gregalton (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Biofuel/Bioenergy is economically impractical
Take corn (Maize) for example, one of the best converters of solar energy, excelled only by sugar cane. Corn converts only 0.7% of the available incident solar energy into bioenergy stored as starch -- calculated on an annual basis. Part of the reason is that the "grainfilling" period is only about 50 days. Some additional energy is stored as cellulose over a 170-day growing period. Both of these come at a staggering cost in water and petroleum-based fertilizers as well as a lot of farm labor.

Using renewable energy eliminates use of factories, power lines, ect. This is much better for our enviorment.

This capability has to be compared to the capability of photovoltaics under the same circumstances. These convert 20 to 30 or more times energy than corn, while requiring no water or fertilizer. The higher cost of PVs (which is rapidly coming down) is partially offset by the reduced cost of the land required to place them -- sometimes, this land cost is a net zero or even negative. Thus, when located on the roof of a building, they can dramatically cut the roof component of cooling costs.

I have an authoritative reference for the corn numbers -- but I promised the source not to publicize his identity. If anyone wants this reference, they can ask for it individually under the same terms. Allenwoll 00:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

- Yes, however, wind and geothermal is more affordable than PV. But either way, it doesn't help with powering the transportation sector unless plug-in hybrids are used, and ultimately electric vehicles. That will happen eventually, but it's not cheap, and automobile manufacturers will resist for as long as possible, every step of the way, partly because they don't want to make vehicles more expensive, and because the market for electric grid storage is underdeveloped, and so the extent to which this can offset the cost is currently limited. That too will change.

The most efficient photosynthesis is algae, which actually already produces oil efficiently. The oil produced is thousands of times more than any other crop. The technical development challenges are to develop methods to grow it in a controlled environment, and to break the cell wall to extract the oil, using clever techniques such as ultrasonics.

Another huge energy resource that is almost a perfect source, yet is vastly underestimated is solid biomass. It can replace the use of oil in some applications, such as space heating, and perhaps ocean transportation and rail transport, thus freeing up oil resources to be used for technically demanding applications like land and air transportation. Also all coal power plants should switch over to biomass fuel which costs about the same and is cleaner and carbon neutral. This would allow the use of petroleum from the oil sands in Alberta, Canada until a better solution is found to power the transportation sector.

Mikiemike (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)--

Solar, Nuclear, Geothermal etc
I noticed that Solar power satellites are listed as a solar technology. This seems like a far out technology to list here. This technology seems much too drawing board to me. Shouldn't something be at the prototype stage or close before it is listed as a renewable energy source. This goes over to the nuclear debate. If the fuel cycle was closed and all the transmutations and breeding chains were figured out there might be something to the argument that nuclear is renewable. But all those processes are paperwork at the moment. And if it's just a dream and some paperwork that makes a technology renewable there are lots of crazy ideas that can be put on this page.

It seems as though a simple qualifier for entry on the list of renewable technologies should be that the technology is past the dream stage and has at least reached the working prototype stage. It seems as though Space power belongs in a hypothetical sources of power category. Just a thought.

I was thinking this about Geothermal the other day. I was asking myself if geothermal is a derivative of solar energy too? The greenhouse effect warms the surface by 33°C. That's essentially a solar input. When you look at an average geothermal gradient of 25°C/km it looks as though ground source heating that is only a couple meters deep is using more energy coming from the sun than the core. Does that make sense? Has this been brought up? I'm curious.

There seems to be something wrong with The Renewable Energy Resource Base (Exajoules a year) graph. How can geothermal have a higher technical and theoretical potential than solar energy?

And finally. I've been working on the Solar Power page. I've asked that the name of the page be changed to Solar Energy. One of the reasons for this is that Solar Energy takes many forms such as light, heat and electricity. Hydro and wind only really make electricity so power is an appropriate designator. Geothermal can do heat or electricity so maybe that's why it's listed as geothermal energy on this page. I notice that solar energy is used on this page. Just wondering if there were any thoughts on changing the name of the Solar power topic to Solar energy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talk • contribs) 11:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

About the Solar Space Satellite. It's tagged as speculative on the Future energy development page. Probably because it not sourced but it's still very speculative. It belongs on a speculative page.

On the Geothermal (geology) it lists the heat flow from the interior of the earth to the surface as 1/20,000 as great as the energy received from the Sun. Below Smil quotes an even higher number.

Chapter 5 pg 163 of the source lists the technical potential of solar energy. The geothermal data comes later. I don't think the info is being properly quoted. I would recommend a better source. Here's a quotes from Smil:

"Renewable fluxes: magnitudes and complications. Insolation (at 122 PW) is the only renewable flux that is nearly 4 orders of magnitude greater than the world’s TPES of nearly 13 TW in the year 2005."

"Except for direct solar radiation and a cripplingly high harvest of planetary NPP, no other renewable energy resource can provide more than 10 TW: generous estimates of technically feasible maxima are less than 10 TW for wind, less than 5 TW for ocean waves, less than 2 TW for hydroelectricity and less than 1 TW for geothermal and tidal energy and for ocean currents. All of these estimates are maxima of uncertain import and actual economically and environmentally acceptable rates may be only small fractions of the technically feasible totals." Mrshaba 11:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * These estimates are very low for wind and geothermal in particular. The articles on wind power and geothermal power document much greater resources, for example. 199.125.109.73 04:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the renewable energy resource potential table needs rework. The information comes from a good source but the comparisons appear asymmetrical. i.e. Data for Geothermal (GT) resource stocks seem to be compared to solar resource flows. Stocks should not be compared to flows. Point sources of energy are also compared to distributed sources of energy in a veiled way. At the very least the assumptions of technical potential need to be further explained. This is a complicated task to be sure. I'm not sure what assumptions the UN report makes to arrive at the GT stocks/flows but the authors of the UN report seem to have overstated the case for GT resources compared to solar resources. The geothermal energy article quotes the solar flux as 20000 times larger than the GT flux. This figure is roughly accurate all and all when the earth is considered as a system drawn around the upper atmosphere. The conflict between the GT energy article and the table in this article is large. Some sort of attempt to resolve this conflict should be made. I will write to the contact listed in the UN article as a first step. Are there any other suggestions for improving the resource numbers? Mrshaba 15:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point about stocks of energy. If something really is quoting the total amount of energy available versus available in a year then it should be taken out of the table ASAP.  Not to mention that a total amount of energy available isn't consistent with the definition of a renewable source.  Only an amount available per year is. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 19:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I cheked the source and the number for Theoretical potential Geothermal energy are the total amount of heat stored in the upper 5 km of the earths (land?) area. Acording to Orders_of_magnitude_(power) the flow are 44 TW or 44*365*24*3600 TJ= 1390 EJ. So it take about 100 000 years to transport the heat on avreage, if it is renewable are up to the defintin, its clear that on a global scale the current use are much less than the flow, but in the future the use may become larger than the usable flow and therfor not sustainable over long periods of time.Peter 79 (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

George W. Bush quote
Okay, George W. Bush publicly classifies nuclear power as a renewable energy source. Let me make a few things clear.

I don't care if you agree with him or not. I don't even care the reasons anyone has for doing so. The fact is that George Bush's opinion is more notable than your own. NOT including the quote is POV.

You may post quotes from other world leaders with sources. You may not delete the fact that he has consistently called it a renewable resource. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 05:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone who can't even pronounce nuclear is hardly an expert on whether it is renewable. He lied to the country to get Saddam's head, and he is lying about nuclear being renewable. As the Dixie Chicks said "we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas". He probably did know he was lying about Iraq. He probably doesn't know he is lying about nucular. He will forever be an embarrassment to the country, although I no longer think he has ever done anything, other than want Saddam's head. Everything else appears to be Rove, Cheney and company's doing. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Give George 2 points for pronouncing nuclear correctly and not calling it renewable in this years state of the union speech. But deduct ten points for calling nuclear non-polluting. 199.125.109.54 (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

George W. Bush is hardly an expert on this subject, also, his opinion is quite possibly highly biased which would make quoting him more POV than not quoting him. And it is rediculous to say just becuase somebody is more well known than somebody else it would be POV to not quote him, that's a stupid statement and nothing else it has no intelligent merit whatsoever it's just stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.52.203.217 (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Just one POV sentence on nuclear
This:

Neither nuclear fission nor nuclear fusion are generally regarded as forms of renewable energy.

Is unacceptable and everyone who's editing the article knows it. The references DO NOT support the statement. The reality is that most reputable organizations avoid the issue of classifying nuclear as renewable or non-renewable to avoid the firestorm that would come with it. That's what those references show. You can just do a google search for the definition of the term and you will find a hundred mentions of fossil fuels, and a notable absence of nuclear power.

The last anon user undid my formatting of the references as well. Please redo them, as well as comment here. Thanks. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 03:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is an extreme minority point of view to even include nuclear in this article at all. You dig up Uranium to make nuclear power. Non-renewable. You make plutonium out of U238 to get more power out of the Uranium. Still non-renewable, and what is that other thing you can make so easily from Plutonium? Help me out I forget, oh wait I remember now... You collect deuterium and tritium to use nuclear fusion, which no one knows yet if it will be practical anyways. Non-renewable. Case closed. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is already entertaining a POV that nuclear is renewable. It should contain one that it's not but it should not contain the sentence above, which is a poor use of sources and not good attribution.  Stop arguing how you consider it one thing or the other.  Nobody cares. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 04:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One, not a half dozen. There is no need to write an essay on this subject. Fourteen words are plenty. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Text 1
Neither nuclear fission nor nuclear fusion are generally regarded as forms of renewable energy.

Text 2
Neither nuclear fission nor nuclear fusion are commonly listed among forms of renewable energy. The EIA and the NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory), for instance, don't include nuclear in their list of renewable energy sources. While both sites use fossil fuels to provide a counter example of renewable sources, both contain no mention of nuclear power.

On the other side of the issue, many groups apart of the anti-nuclear movement have insisted that nuclear power not be considered a renewable resource.

Text 3
However, whether these energy systems are commonly considered amongst forms of renewable energy for political purposes is a question seperate from whether they are actually "renewable", on a factual level.

No energy system is truly infinite - the hydrogen in the sun is equally as finite as the nuclear fusion and fission fuels on Earth. This is not to say that for the purposes of responsible planning on any time scale relevant to foreseeable generations of humanity, solar power will not continue to be available without significant change - it certainly will continue to be fully available for the foreseeable future - but the fact is, that man-made nuclear fission and fusion will also be fully available for generations into the foreseeable future.

There is no sensible, scientifically motivated, factual reason why nuclear fission and fusion energy systems cannot be considered a form of fully sustainable, "renewable energy" also.

These are all proposed for the nuclear section. I think text 2 should be used. The wording I think is fairly NPOV right now, but it could by all means be improved. I'm not sure how this is construed to be "too long". I would take 2 extra sentences over (text 1) POV and unsupported by references. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 02:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Come up with something shorter than text 1 and we can talk about it. Not longer. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't barter to include POV. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 03:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But seriously, until the section contains one attributed statement of it being called renewable and one of it being called non-renewable, the section will never be stable. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 03:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It already includes one of each. Since you think the wording is fairly NPOV right now, just leave it. If you can shorten it I'm all ears. If you want to make it longer, I'm doubtful that it would be necessary. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it shouldn't be kept at xx words, explanatory text is very necessary, and "text 1" above is intentionally misleading and deceptive. Do you see where I'm coming from yet? -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 21:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I know that you are coming from a viewpoint of trying to promote nuclear power, is there anything else I need to know? All that needs to be said is that nuclear power is not renewable. It says generally considered because you and a very few others falsely consider it to be renewable, just like getting 3x4 wrong. Your getting it wrong doesn't mean we have to explain anything. The whole section is an extreme minority viewpoint. There is nothing deceptive or misleading about text 1. We have had you repeatedly try to write huge soliloquies about this subject, and they are not necessary. When three words suffice, don't use ten. When ten suffice don't use 20. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you need a link of anti-nuclear edits and articles I've done? I'm not promoting nuclear power, and I will WP:AGF in regards to all other editors - end of story.  You must say in the article "xxx says does not classify nuclear as renewable", as opposed to saying "nuclear is not classified as renewable" which is equivalent to saying "The great Wikipedia declares nuclear is not renewable".


 * Bottom line: mention in the article who calls it not renewable, as an example at the least. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 22:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly better. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 23:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Another page from the same site could have been used: Scientific Forms of Energy I don't see any firestorm of complaints, like would arise if they put it into the renewable category. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the latest version is an improvement over the sentence that started this discussion, Theanphibian's last version (diff) had the advantage of covering both sides of the debate in a unified paragraph. A tight paragraph like that might let us move the Cohen quote (which I think gives the pro-nuclear position undue prominence in the article) off to the references. -- Avenue (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's my favorite version. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 00:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Cohen quote has the advantage that it is a definitive use of the word renewable, otherwise you get back into the essay writing mode again. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of text has been removed from this section again, with no rationale or discussion that I can see. Just biased editors eroding away things they don't personally like. Do I really need to come in here every few months and replace it? — Omegatron 10:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't. It will always be quickly deleted. See The Great Nuclear Debate for discussion on this. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know. That debate is the reason this section exists.   — Omegatron 21:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

MW
Modern wind turbines range from around 600kW to up to 5 MW of rated power. I notice all over wiki things are rated as X MW. Over what time period are these figures for ? Gnevin (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you might be thinking of kWh and MWh, units of energy. MW and kW are units of power, and are the peak rating, above which it has to feather the propeller or turn away from the wind to avoid damage. If a wind turbine has a duty cycle of 25%, meaning that on average it puts out 25% peak rating, then over the course of a year a 600 kW turbine will put out 0.25x600x24x365=1,314,000 kWh each year for the useful life of the turbine. Duty cycles are very dependent on location and the weather. For example, the 660 kW wind turbine at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy generated 1,112,298 kWh in the last year, a number which will fluctuate by 20% or so from year to year. Since you are asking the question, we may need to make the article more explicit. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you could start an article it would be great, you could just wikify the above , very helpful explanation as i was seeing these kw figures all over with no idea how they related to a daily/monthly/yearly output or what it meant. Gnevin (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above is licensed under the GFDL, as are all contributions to Wikipedia, and you are free to cut and paste it anywhere you think it would help. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you suggest a name for this article ? Gnevin (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I added it to the Wind energy section of the Wind power article. There is also a capacity factor article, and you might want to add it there. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Renewable vs non-renewable
I'm sorry but I really think anyone who can not tell the difference between renewable and non-renewable really needs to go back to the third grade and have someone explain it to them. Renewables are continuously replenished. Non-renewables use a fuel source which is not naturally replenished in a short period of time. It is that simple. I'm the one who added fusion, but not because I thought it was renewable, but because it lasts a whole lot longer than fission, if we ever get it to work. Neither are renewable because both require a finitely available fuel source that is not replenished. Personally I think we already have a well designed fusion reactor located a safe distance from major population centers, 93 million miles, and there is no need to build one any closer. 199.125.109.36 (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion concerns Renewable_energy. V8rik (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree nuclear is not renewable, but the most cogent point from the other side is that fusion in the Sun is not that disimilar from fusion on Earth - and yet solar and wind power are counted as renewable, whereas fusion on Earth isn't. So the definition of renewable is somewhat arbitrary, even if it is precise. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a valid argument. Stars are naturally occurring, a part of the natural world. Fusion on Earth requires humongous machinery. Solar and wind are naturally occurring flows of energy. The word to use is definitive, not arbitrary, in the distinction. We can enhance our use of solar and wind by the use of humongous machinery, but no machinery is required in the case of simpler uses of sun and wind. In other words it isn't the machinery that creates the flow of energy. 199.125.109.38 (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * When dealing with fact tags the supplied reference should be relevant. the supplied ref does not mention nuclear fusion. Also consider Fusion_power. Really the best thing to do here is have any mention of nuclear fusion removed because it is after all just an experimental technology V8rik (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC).
 * No problem. It's now gone. But after it is developed it will be a non-renewable technology. Sustainable does not equate to renewable. Why do you think renewable energy is called renewable? It could have been called "sustainable energy" but that would not be meaningful, so it was called "renewable energy" which is meaningful. 199.125.109.38 (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's all about timescale. Nothing is "renewable" if you consider the death of the sun. Cohen's argument is that nuclear fission power could last longer than the sun, and should therefore be considered renewable. Fusion is in the same boat. — Omegatron 10:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of CO2 emissions: cellulose fired electricity generation vs. cellulosic ethanol
The emperical formula for cellulosic ethanol would have to be:
 * Cellulose + Water → Ethanol + Oxygen
 * (C6H5O5)n + 4n(H2O) → 3n(C2H6O) + 3nO2

The 3n of ethanol would be 85% of the weight of n-cellulose Yet ethanol has twice the energy density of cellulose. (see table here: heat of combustion) Clearly not all of the cellulose can be converted to ethanol. The section labeled "dubious" said 1/3, but was unsourced. It said nothing of the method used for conversion or the efficiency this would imply. Mikiemike (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)--

...It's a good subject to put in, I just think it could be better in terms of the comparison, the calculation/analysis, and info sourcing. As it stands, electric power really isn't in the same category as a liquid fuel like ethanol. Perhaps if the electricity were used to charge an electric vehicle, then it would be a valid comparison. I'd guess electricity would still release less CO2 than ethanol, but it should be sourced or the calculation should be put on the talk page. Also, I'm not convinced that coal has anything to do with it. Mikiemike (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)--

editprotected Please revert the last edit by user:Dan Pangburn. The reference has nothing to do with ethanol or cellulose, and the essay is not meaningful. 199.125.109.36 (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I just rephrased it to make more sense and be more clear about the refs it uses. There's an OR claim in there that needs a citation now, and the paragraph probably needs to be somewhere else (or needs some more context).  NJGW (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are we even looking at the same reference? The reference added by Dan Pangburn is "Carbon Accounting", yet they wrote a rambling essay about cellulose and ethanol. Instead of adding cn, just take the whole paragraph out. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit declined, no consensus. Please consider creating an account to contribute directly. Sandstein (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The paragraph accurately reported what the source said. I took out the source because it doesn't directly address the statement that requires a citation.  If you have other suggestions besides removal of sourced paragraphs, please suggest a rewrite here.  Personally I don't think we should be burning coal, and using ethanol for driving is not a serious solution, but the suggestion that co-firing cellulose with coal may be cleaner than driving with it looks like it may be sound (though there still appears to be at least one piece of the equation missing).  Anybody else care to have a look at this?  NJGW (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever. The mizuho-fg source had nothing to do with the paragraph it supposedly supported, and it is gone now. As far as I am concerned coal should be only used as a building material - in the form of carbon fiber. Burning ethanol is not a good idea in large quantities anyway. It still puts CO2 into the air; even though you regain it later, it is still in the atmosphere. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Always be sure to wp:assume good faith when evaluating a paragraph, and try to figure out the intention before taking out the whole thing. If you take another look at the paragraph, the only statement that source was covering was "The replaced coal would produce 0.0946 kg CO₂/MJ", a figure strait from the carbon accounting article.  The rest is mostly straitforward math, and the real missing piece of information was what happens when you co-fire coal and ethanol (which was the CN I put in).  I don't think there was ever any intention of using the carbon accounting article to account for the whole paragraph.


 * Of course burning coal or ethanol or anything else gives you CO2 or worse (unless you're oxidizing a metal I guess), the big question has to be how do we ween ourselves off the carbon burning kick as cleanly and painlessly (and quickly) as possible. NJGW (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

100% renewable
It would be useful to add the work done in Germany recently on the combined power plant, which links together wind farms and solar farms with biomass and hydrostorage to allow using 100% renewable energy. In the demonstration project, 60% was from wind, 14% solar and 25% from biomass, but biomass is just cheap and inefficient solar storage, so it is likely that the ratios will change over time. The important point was that they proved that it could reliably provide 100% renewable electricity. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That does look cool. Can you write up a paragraph with some secondary sources?  If this can stay 100% reliable, that overcomes some of the main critisizms of wind and solar!  Also, check out Juan Enriquez's TED lecture on growing energy, essentially discussing biomass in terms of solar energy storage.  NJGW (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If I see any other references I'll add them. I found out about it through a blog, but you won't want that. As to writing, there is one sentence about it in the wind power article that you can use:


 * A combined power plant linking solar, wind, biogas and hydrostorage is proposed as a way to provide 100% renewable power.


 * If you create the article, which would be a good idea, the history should be included - it stemmed from a bold statement made last July I think, and was done as a so there project. Here are the resources I have found. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Environmental technology template
I'd like to replace the Environmental technology template with one that matches the standard navbox style, i.e. horizontal instead of vertical, collapsing and typically placed at the bottom of article pages. I've done a mock up of what this would look like at. Figured this was a big enough change that I should post before going ahead with it. Please discuss here--jwandersTalk 21:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Calculation on www.gewp.org
As a new WP editor, I believe I am conflicted for using anything from www.gewp.org on this main article. Could another editor look at that site and reference the "rough calculation" to a known publication or else comment that the calculation is right, wrong, needs improved, etc.? Nukeh (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your site is not coming up, but this is really not a good place to look for peer reviews of scientific papers. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on peer review. Is this something a fellow editor would note and enter, when prize money is announced: [] ? Would it matter if it were a Google rather than a GEWP prize ?Nukeh (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Fission power
Hopefully someone will notice this without this request. However, just to make sure:

In the "Other issues" section, change the heading "Nuclear Fission power" to "Nuclear power", for two reasons, we don't capitalize more than the first word but more importantly, there is no other type of nuclear power that generates power today. The article on it is "Nuclear power", not "Nuclear fission power". 199.125.109.36 (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. — Omegatron 10:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Scenarios
In the Scenarios section, add bullets in front of each of the


 * three scenarios to improve readability. 199.125.109.81 (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How does that look? If I get a chance I'll revisit all the sections, as that one probably shouldn't be the first one.  NJGW (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I don't think you should change the topic heading. Nobody cares that it is brought up by ASES - it isn't an ASES scenario, it is a Renewable energy scenario. I was just going to put an asterisk in front of each sentence. Right now the section looks unbalanced. Also, after the bullet you should start each sentence with a capital letter. 199.125.109.80 (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For the third one, I would have taken out the word And, and start with In, because it isn't a paragraph, it is a list. I would also change "the" to "a":


 * In a "business as usual" scenario, the jobs created by renewable energy would increase 190% by 2030, while jobs created by energy efficiency would increase by 85%.


 * In a moderate scenario, the jobs created by renewable energy would increase nearly seven-fold, while jobs created by energy efficiency would more than double.


 * In an advanced scenario, the jobs created by renewable energy would increase 17-fold, while jobs created by energy efficiency would quadruple. In the advanced scenario, renewable energy revenues would increase to nearly $600 billion, while energy efficiency revenues would increase to almost $4 trillion.
 * 199.125.109.80 (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can also take out all that garbage in the nuclear section. Nobody cares that GWB once called nuclear renewable (he no longer does) or anything else in the last three paragraphs, other than that "nuclear power is not generally considered to be renewable". 199.125.109.80 (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

cogeneration not included
Depending on the definition, cogeneration may or may not be renewable. But, it is sufficiently important (potentially), and so easily installed (being a modification to existing power plants) that its potential for reducing energy requirements is very significant. Maybe qa new section? ww (talk) 07:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

GLARING omission
(conversation moved to Mitigation of peak oil talk page)

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: ; 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) 02:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Animal power energy
''"However, human power for direct use (as in bikes) deserves a mention in this article IMO."

And what about animal power? To veganists it's a bad thing, but this kind of renewable energy might even be/have been more important than human power. Besides, the nearer exhausture of crude oil sources comes, the more important these two kinds might become again; (in stead of intercontinental flights, line boats, droven by the wind in their sails, solar light on their panels and some hundred rowing employees; sustainable for sure). --Natubico (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Idea
Add sustainable development infobar to bottom of page. Type this:


 * This is a very large and complex template, which would come after a long "See also" section. I just don't see the need for it. Johnfos (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This template was deleted and portalized last year. It has been recommended for deletion at wp:tfd Apteva (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Renewable Fuels
Discuss at: Talk:Renewable fuels —Preceding unsigned comment added by NJGW (talk • contribs) 13:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Link Fix
I am not familiar with the Wikipedia and I am sorry if I ask here off-topic, but can someone, please, add a link to Slovak version of this page? It should be like this: Obnoviteľné zdroje energie or the full address is: http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obnoviteľné_zdroje_energie Thank you, Juraj Kubica (147.175.112.15 (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)).
 * Done. you can just edit the article and put Obnoviteľné zdroje energie at the bottom. works similar as on this talkpage. Cheers. Mion (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Free energy
The use of this phrase to refer to renewable energy appears to be a wp:neologism. It is an idea Reddi has tried many times to push forward, but has yet to provide any sources for his claim. It may be used in passing, but in all the examples I see it is a juxtaposition of concepts rather than an actual phrase. Please provide a source which claims it is used colloquially to refer to renewable energy (anymore than an oil man might use "bullshit" colloquially to refer to renewables). NJGW (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that "Free Energy" has been used contemporaneously to refer to over-unity claims, which renewable energy is not one of. --Skyemoor (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Yilloslime (t) 20:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the following: "Free energy colloquially denotes renewable energy with no or negligible feedstock cost, including solar power, telluric power, water power, and wind power." This text should not be reinserted unless references are provided which explicitly support the point being made.--Srleffler (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image discussion
I note that despite the request for a discussion rather than an edit war, one editor has preferred instead to simply remove an image with the summary "image is unencyclopedic. There are no scales, data values are used, accuracy unverifiable". Let's take those one by one. I did not create the original image in question, but do know a lot about it, and did create the subsequent revisions.


 * Unencyclopedic - that would be, which, off topic or poorly worded/crafted? Neither is supported by any discussion.
 * no scales - actually there is a scale - TW, and the image is sized to fit on the page in a relative scale, which was adjusted slightly from the original. In creating a volume graph using cubes, the scale is the cube root of the value.
 * data values are used - what? You are saying that they should be removed? That would render the chart meaningless, as it would if the data values were removed from any of the other charts on the page.
 * accuracy unverifiable - actually the data is well sourced and verified as accurate. As to tweaking the number of pixels used for each object, it is relatively accurate, though it could be off by one or two pixels (out of several hundred), not a significant objection. Anyone who wishes can count the pixels and verify the accuracy of each cube. If you add up all the human use numbers from the primary source used to create the chart, they add up to 14.6005, which is within the rounding error of 15 provided by the much more accurate secondary source used for current consumption.

I would suggest restoring the image to the article, or actually, replacing it with the recently updated Image:Available Energy-4.png, which has added hydro (by request), and increased the image legends (by request). I find it particularly useful as a comparison between the availability of solar power, wind power, and current energy consumption. Delphi234 (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There are no scales on the image: are the cubes linear, logarithmic, or other? There is no way to understand or verify the size of the boxes as there are no scales. Use of data value labels vs. scales denotes a weak graph. Pixel counting: I can't believe anyone who broach a point like that.


 * Interestingly enough, "user" Delphi234 is under a sockpuppet investigation, as user Apteva, who claims to be the one who has created these charts, has been pushing this image relentlessly at Solar Energy, against a 6-1 consensus. --Skyemoor (talk)
 * You tell me. Do you think the cubes represent a linear ratio to the numbers they represent, in which case the volume of the cube is proportional to the number, or are the volumes proportional to the log of the numbers, "or other"? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. You want a ruler next to the cubes, feel free to draw one in if you feel that it would improve the drawing. What I see is a lot of empty complaints and no substance. I don't recall the earlier discussion, but apparently the diagram has already been extensively discussed and objections are in the minority. The diagram was well conceived when it was created by Frank Mierlo, and there is no reason to not use it. I did find a course on statistics which covers this type of graph, and it said that the easiest type of volume graph to create (where the value is proportional not to the length of a bar, as in a bar graph, or to the area, as in an area chart, but to the volume of an object), was to use cubes, so that the edge of each cube is proportional to the cube root of the value. It also says that when values have a wide value, areas are not adequate, which is why a volume graph was used. Frank originally tried and rejected a log bar graph. The volume graph is much better. As to pixel counting, you were the one who brought up that there was no way to verify the accuracy. But there is. Just count the pixels. Or print it and measure the sides with a ruler. The main point though, is if you don't like the diagram, create a better one. And in the meantime use this one. Delphi234 (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's hard to believe you wouldn't remember the RfC and the Mediation and the ongoing objections over the last few weeks - objections that are hardly in the minority.


 * The comic sans font (or similar) used for Image:Available Energy-2.jpg is again, neither professional nor encyclopedic. Mark83 14:48, 27 January 2007


 * A volume graph was probably used so the wildly disparate scales would fit together and still be visible. Its worth noting that using volume to represent quantity is a technique to reduce the apparent difference between various amounts. It seems the amount of solar energy available isn't much more than total consumption, maybe 4 or 5 times at a glance. This is because a casual user expects the only relevant axis to be height and that it is linear. But with a volume graph a doubling of the height means an eight times increase! I was caught out by this until I read the attached text on World_energy_resources_and_consumption. See How_To_Lie_With_Statistics for more fun. --Schwern 07:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC) ]


 * I'll tell you how to lie with statistics, use the amount of solar power absorbed by the earth instead of the amount usable by solar plants. The solar number is complete BS, only 1/3 of the available area is land area and at best we can convert maybe, MAYBE, 1/5th of the absorbed energy into electrical energy, then only if you deforested the entire earth and replaced all land available at all with solar panels, the number would only be like 3,000 TW. That amount of solar power that would ever be thinkable to use would be far less than the 15 TW block, not even considering intermittency and other problems. Yes, the graph is deceptive, very. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 04:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Boring graphic, requires too much study to work it out. Not worth its space. The point would be better simply made in a sentence. --SmokeyJoe 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The information conveyed by this graphic is already text-based. The graphic elements rely too much on data that is mostly hidden from view (the implied volumes). With so few items that represent such truly large differences it would be better to elegantly state the contrast in text rather than using a graphic. --Cheng Houston 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone with graphics skills could take the boring full-sun picture from below (or download a similar one) and superimpose a pie chart on the solar disc to illustrate these data. These isometric cubes are primitive, hard to decipher, and take up too much space. --NameThatWorks 15:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, your question was unrelated to the matter at hand. Anybody would chose solar, simply because the cube is bigger. However, the image is deceiving, because it is three-dimensional. Not only that, but it as a boring graphic that could be easily explained in a sentence or two in the actual article. -Rycr (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the point is indisputable, that not all incident energy is "available for use." Only a tiny fraction is, in fact available for use. If the caption read "total incident energy" instead of "total available energy" it would be correct. As it is, it is simply advocating development of solar energy using a misleading statistic. I don't want to jump into any wiki-politics, but in my opinion the article would be better with the graphic simply removed and I don't understand why the graphic remains against almost such strong opposition.Wphamilton 20:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not only is this an encyclopedia, where novel data has no business being, this is Wikipedia, where reinterpretation of sources is prohibited. Spare us the condescension, ad-hominem arguments or grasping for straws. Unlike everyone else here, I have no special knowledge of solar energy, nor have I ever edited this page (or any other energy-related page). But I have a nose for OR, and I can check sources, and I can verify that there is overwhelming agreement here (on talk) to not use the diagrams. It seems highly unlikely that everyone but you is wrong. -- Fullstop (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Fully agree with Fullstop. There is no need to recycle the same argument over and over and over and over. The diagram is considered inappropriate for this article, and if you even need to understand why, re-read this talk page section fully each time you get the urge to put the diagram back it. --Skyemoor (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit note) rm embarrasingly unencyclopedic childish misinterpretation of source, consensus to remove after two RfCs and a mediation. Enough is enough.Itsmejudith 22:55, 5 October 2008


 * (edit note) removing unencyclopedic and misleading image ScienceApologist 18:18, 25 October 2008


 * (Part of a larger post) You casually remark upon area and volume graphs as though they are commonly used methods of presenting data that anybody will understand. They are not. Few, if any, of the many data plotting software packages available in the world can do either sort of graph, which should tell you something about what the world thinks of their popularity and their clarity. Even Microsoft products, which are frequently criticized for encouraging poor presentation of data, do not support such charts. (Yes, they have a chart type called "Area," but the charts it produces are not the "root 2" chart that you're talking about. The closest thing it has to what you're talking about would be the bubble chart, but that is meant for presenting 3-dimensional data, not 1-dimensional data like we are discussing here.) Your remarks about scale are a non-sequitur -- scales can be drawn independent of transformation, though they of course must be drawn with the transformation in mind if they are to be accurate. There's nothing stopping you from presenting data that varies from 2 to 7 on a log10 scale from 1 to 10, for example, and if the data are a power function of the abscissa that may even be the best way to present them. Squirmymcphee 06:47, 18 October 2008


 * Unencyclopedic, deceptive, displays Exergy as Energy and all of the above. Sorry to carry this over to this talk page but this guy is using multiple accounts to push this diagram. I hope this is almost over. Mrshaba (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's pretty damning... Delphi234, if you have a really good reason reason for this image being kept nows the time to explain: What does the image accomplish? NJGW (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not damning in the least. I don't know where the above was cut and pasted from, but it certainly was not from any archive from this talk page, and it may not be at all relevant to this article. I will note that the editor who cut and pasted it has indicated a familiarity with a competing technology to renewable energy, and may simply be attempting to hide any positive information about renewable energy. They have historically only edited one article, and seem to be hell bent to get me banned so that they can continue to put whatever they wish into that article. What the diagram shows is the relative availability of the majority of the non-carbon based renewable energies. I do not know why biomass was not included, but biomass has a really bad name right now, and while it is a renewable resource, it does not contribute to our biggest problem, which is how to get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and stabilize global temperatures. In the future, biomass will need to be used to regulate the earth's temperature to whatever we want, but that's a policy decision, and so far not all earth's leaders have even been able to agree to keep from letting the earth go to hell in a handbasket, and are continuing to permit runaway global warming. We are using mostly coal, oil, and natural gas for energy right now, all of which are rapidly increasing CO2 levels. There has been a lot of talk about wind power, for example T. Boone Pickens in the United States is a big advocate of wind power. But the question in my mind, that the diagram answers, is, is there enough wind power to meet current consumption, and what other resources do we have, for example, the diagram was updated by request to add hydro, but you can see that all the energy in all the hydro in the world is only about half of what we are currently using, so the diagram is a visual indicator of what we can expect from hydro (gravity based hydropower). The same for solar and geothermal. So I see the diagram as an essential element to the renewable energy article, and challenge anyone who doesn't like it to create a better one but in the meantime use this one. For someone to even comment on a font used in a jpeg in an FA review is kind of bizarre, when anyone could load the image into MS paint or whatever Apple/Linux use and change it in 15 seconds... Thanks soooo much for pointing that out. Delphi234 (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Delphi234 is blatantly lying through his teeth. He has been pushing this image at Solar Energy under the name Apteva, has been caught pretending to be multiple people, and here pretends that nobody understands his deception. And then he blames us for being "hell bent on getting him banned". For those wondering where the above comments came from, here is one of the many discussions on the topic. This user is highly, repetitively disruptive, and I've never had to say that in my 2 years editing here. --Skyemoor (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look through that talk page you will find the very appropriate words "cat fight". None of the preceding paragraph has anything whatsoever to do with creating a quality encyclopedia and updating the image if needed. No, my comments about getting me banned were not directed at you, Skyemoor, though you seem to feel that the shoe fits. Actually if you check my edits you will see that I do nothing other than work to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. So, back to the topic on hand, if you feel the diagram could use improvement, fix it. If you don't feel comfortable making the changes yourself, ask about them. I'm quite willing to make any changes needed, and have already made a couple of changes per request. If you don't feel the diagram is appropriate to an article on renewable energy when the diagram clearly exists for the sole purpose of listing the major renewable energies, then you really have me baffled. By the way, links to talk pages can be made using double brackets, they are internal links, like this here, and do not need to use single brackets as external links. Just use a pipe ( the vertical line like this: | ) to separate the text you want displayed instead of a space, as is done with an external link. Delphi234 (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you like the idea behind image so much, then try to make it better. The major issue I see is brought up as: "The solar number is complete BS, only 1/3 of the available area is land area and at best we can convert maybe, MAYBE, 1/5th of the absorbed energy into electrical energy, then only if you deforested the entire earth and replaced all land available at all with solar panels, the number would only be like 3,000 TW. That amount of solar power that would ever be thinkable to use would be far less than the 15 TW block, not even considering intermittency and other problems."  To settle this, you'll need to provide what sources you plan drawing the numbers from, so we see if we can even settle that issue first.  After we've agreed on numbers, I'd suggest creating a version which presents the data as areas instead of volumes, because that seems to be a big sticking point for a lot of people.  NJGW (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Areas don't work for large ratios. You end up with one pixel squares. I would really caution against even reading what I consider to be mostly drivel and do a total self examination of the diagram. The only suggestion of any value I have seen is the font, and that is so trivial that I don't even know why it was even made (without acting on it). I have thought a lot about how to indicate what the actual potential is for solar power, and wind power, and have concluded that the answer is precisely 15 TW - or whatever the total we are currently using, so I see no reason for speculating about intermittency, or availability, or efficiency, or feasibility, or anything else. In the future the world won't be using much more either, because today 90% of what we do use is wasted and we are constantly reducing our per capita use (in developed countries). Any estimates of any of those factors are moot if it exceeds our total use (it's like estimating that you can eat 67 hot dogs for dinner, out of a plate of 6,000 - would you?). The main thing that I learn from looking at the diagram is that hydro can't provide us with squat for additional energy, geothermal can provide a little, wind can easily provide 100%, provided that it is supplemented with adequate storage, and solar can provide a virtually infinite supply of energy compared to what we need (understanding of course that "infinity" actually means maybe 100 or 1000 or so, but that is so far beyond what we need that it might as well be infinity). Biomass isn't included, but it needs to be used only to regulate the earth's CO2 levels to whatever we desire, as previously stated, ideally maybe around 260-280 ppm. Delphi234 (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a table I've been putting together to display the solar energy resources - hat tip to user Fullstop for plenty of help. This page currently uses the World energy Report from 2001 to fill in a similar renewable resource table. The 2001 report is nice because it is a single comprehensive source but the numbers it presents are out of date in many respects. Consider that wind power and solar hot water have expanded about 5 fold and PV has grown about 10 fold since 2001. Ideally, this page should use the same numbers for theoretical potential, technical potential and current use that all the related energy pages use. Choosing current numbers will take some doing but it's worth the effort. Gipe or AWEA could provide good wind numbers, Idaho National Lab could provide geothermal, etc. Thoughts? Mrshaba (talk) 05:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For the renewable energy article you need to add geothermal and wave power, as there has been a lot of discussion of each. I personally believe the "technical potential" is specious because while it tells us using todays state of the art that is what could be done, but tells us nothing about what could be done when the Earth population is 5 Billion, but we are using 500 TW, so that we can have lunch on the Moon every Friday, etc (I'm kidding). The wind number in particular is out of date, because it is based on 80 m turbines, but we are already at 100 m and talking about 130 m. So it's interesting as a back of the envelope calculation, but once you see that it is six times what you need you can throw it away. What did we learn? That we can get all of our energy from the wind and essentially an infinite amount from the sun, the same that we knew even before we did any calculations, just from looking at the sizes of the cubes in the drawing. That said, keep the technical potential column, it just shows that someone figured it out. But add a little color please. Make it look attractive. But I wouldn't use a table instead of the diagram, I would use it as well as the diagram. That way the 90% of us who are visual will get the information just as quick as the 2% of us who are math oriented. Delphi234 (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)