Talk:Renewable energy in Russia

Peat
The parts of the article relating to peat were removed with the claim that it is not renewable. However, clearly states that "The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has changed the classification of peat from a 'fossil fuel' to a 'renewable biomass resource' in recognition that peat can indeed by harvested and cultivated sustainably.". It is also growing much faster than it is being harvested, especially in peat-rich areas like Sweden, Finland, Russia and Canada. I think that this shows that peat can be treated as a renewable resource in this article. --Slon02 (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, the information that peat is a biomass resource is new for me, but the UN link seems covincing. Perhaps the Peat article should contain a link to that UN decision, so that people wouldn't delete peat from other articles on the basis that it is not a traditional biomass.  Grey Hood   Talk  22:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

A better reference would be appreciated; From "International Recommendations for Energy Statistics" on UN servers "3.1Peat is not considered a renewable resource as its regeneration period is long." 129.67.86.189 (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the interesting document. However it's only provisional draft from July 2010, and this link holds copyright for 2011. Are you sure that the peat classification wasn't changed by that UN panel in the second half of 2010 or early 2011? Grey Hood   Talk  18:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, as it is written in Peat peat is recognised as renewable biomass at least in some EU countries. Since Wikipedia should reflect all significant points of view, we certainly should include peat in the article about renewable energy in Russia, but with a note that peat is not universally recognized as renewable source. Grey Hood   Talk  18:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No I am not sure it has not changed; however, a nursery's FAQ is not a reliable source : it is quite literally "hearsay" -- the nursery has not linked the document from where it makes that claim, and we only have it on the authority of the nursery that the document actually was (1) correctly interpreted (2) up-to-date. Without better sources, it would be most prudent to simply omit something where there are concerns, in my opinion. 129.67.86.189 (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that Glendoick's FAQ is not a reliable source compared to UN documents. But, that FAQ aside, there are other sources claiming peat is renewable, and certain countries recognize this fact. And I think that by leaving peat in the article with a note on non-universal recognition of its renewable status, we achieve a reasonable compromise and better coverage of the topic. Cheers! Grey Hood   Talk  19:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Definition of "underdeveloped"
"Renewable energy in Russia is largely underdeveloped" - but what exactly does "underdeveloped" mean in this context? I know there are sources which say this, but it would be nice to know a more exact definition. Possibly, it's a comparison to some other countries. Then the question is, to which ones? For example, the lead of Renewable energy in China doesn't say the sector is "underdeveloped" - despite the fact that the ratio of renewable sources in China's electricity production is just one percentage point higher than in Russia's (17% vs 16%). Nanobear (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that much depends here on hydroelectricity. Renewable energy excluding hydroelectricity is indeed underdeveloped in Russia, compared to Western nations. Renewable energy including hydroelectricity is pretty good in Russia, due to the large number of hydropower statations with decent technology level. However, if we measure hydroelectricity sector in Russia against very large hydroelectric potential of Siberia and the Far East, than again, we could say that hydroelectricity is underdeveloped in Russia in the sense of much potential still unused.  Grey Hood   Talk  14:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)