Talk:Sustainable energy/Archive 2

Nuclear fusion & fission
Nuclear fission has four inherent liabilities - radiation, risk of accident, waste, and risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons, and is not likely to have a significant role, due to the vast availability of wind power and solar power.[164][165]

That statement seems to me to have a significant bias. We don't know how likely the role of fusion energy (or any future energy fo that matter) will have, and there are many prediction that do say fusion will have a significant role if it's efficiently achieved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.199.121 (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, neither of those sources was talking about fusion. One was talking about fission, which is very different, and the other was just suggesting that there are many clean energy options in the United States (although the supported paragraph was making a much broader claim). The paragraph was original research, so I removed it. Grayfell (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The whole paragraph is biased. Three out of the four references here are from nuclear energy lobby organisations, which of course claim that nuclear power is sustainable. But there is no neutral scientific work that confirms these claims. In fact I never read in scientific work that nuclear power is a sustainable, only that with the development of breeders or nuclear fusion it can provide energy for a long time. But inherent problems such as the storage of nuclear waste make them non-sustainable. I therefore suggest to remove the whole paragraph, or at least write that nuclear power lobby organisations claim that nuclear power is sustainable. Now the paragraph says that nuclear power is sustainable, and that is definitely not consensus in the scientific world. Andol (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see this came up before. In any case Andol, none of my references are from "nuclear lobby organisations". Secondly I also wish for you to apply this exacting standard of yours here and remove every use of references from the wind industry lobby groups etc. As what's good for the goose is good for the gander, is it not?

In any case, here's my edit that uses peer-reviewed journal references, the IPCC, IAEA, the UN affiliated Our Common Future & NASA to name but a few. None of which are "nuclear lobby organisations". If Grayfell or anyone else still has issues with this, please point out the specific cases, 1 by 1 and contribute as such. Do not blank again.

Resource supply
While many have classified the most dominant present nuclear reactor technology, the Light Water Reactor as environmentally friendly "green energy", due to the IPCC's findings that it is essentially as non-greenhouse gas emitting in nature as wind & hydro energy. Including Greenpeace founder and first member Patrick Moore,  George Monbiot, Bill Gates and James Lovelock. This reactor technology is not efficient enough in its use of fuel to last more than a few hundred, to at most a thousand, years or so in all likely scenarios.

Therefore in terms of sustainable energy, apart from conventional renewable energy sources, the other major low carbon power technology that is also a sustainable source of energy, are the sustainable nuclear energy technologies such as breeder reactors, which produce/breed more fuel than they consume.

With the use of fast breeder reactors such as the presently operating BN-600 reactor, BN-800 reactor and the conceptual Integral Fast Reactor, which all have the potential for a closed/recycled nuclear fuel cycle, with a burn up of, and recycling of, all the uranium, plutonium and minor actinides; actinides which presently make up the most hazardous substances in nuclear waste, there is 160,000 years worth of natural uranium in total known conventional land resources and phosphate ore. When one also includes the resource of natural uranium extracted from seawater, this has been calculated to have the potential to supply energy at least as long as the sun's expected remaining lifespan of five billion years. This was based on calculations involving the geological cycles of erosion, subduction, and uplift, leading to humans consuming half of the total uranium in the Earth’s crust at an annual usage rate of 6500 tonne/yr, which was enough to produce approximately 10 times the world's 1983 electricity consumption, and would reduce the concentration of uranium in the seas by 25%, resulting in an increase in the price of uranium of less than 25%. The extraction of this natural uranium from seawater would also have the long term benefit of reducing the concentration of this naturally occurring heavy metal pollutant in the world's oceans.

Moreover, Thorium may also be seen as a fuel source but at present is an often overlooked alternative to natural uranium in breeder reactors,it is however several times(about 3 to 4)  more abundant on land/Earth's crust than all isotopes of uranium combined, but the average concentration or occurrence of thorium in seawater however is over 1000 times lower, in the range of nanograms per liter compared to uranium which is about 3 micrograms per liter,    3 mg(milligrams) per cubic meter/ton of water. As thorium is about four times more abundant within the earth’s crust than uranium, the worlds current supply is capable of generating enough energy to power the world for thousands of years. Thorium fuels prove to be beneficial in comparison to uranium based nuclear reactors, as they have slightly greater proliferation resistance. India intends to rely on thorium in its future nuclear energy mix with a projection of 30% of its electrical demands through thorium by 2050.

Environmental impact comparisons
While in comparison to wind power, which consumes no water for continuing operation, and has near negligible emissions directly related to its electricity production. In full life cycle assessments(LCAs), Wind turbines when isolation from the electric grid produce negligible amounts of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, mercury and radioactive waste when in operation, unlike fossil fuel sources and nuclear energy station fuel production, respectively. However while still low, in life cycle assessments wind turbines do produce slightly more particulate matter(PM), a form of air pollution, at a rate per unit of energy generated(kWh) higher than a fossil gas electricity station("NGCC"), and also more heavy metals and PM than nuclear stations per unit of energy generated. Furthermore, in terms of total pollution costs of presently operating nuclear technology which does not have a closed nuclear fuel cycle, in economic terms, despite alpine Hydropower exhibiting the lowest external pollution, or Externality, costs of all electricity generating systems, below 0.05 c€/kWh. Wind power has a 0.09 - 0.12c€/kW value, nuclear energy(due to its small volume but still hazardous spent nuclear fuel/"nuclear waste") has a 0.19 c€/kWh value and fossil fuels from 1.6 - 5.8 c€/kWh. With the exception of the latter fossil fuels, these are negligible costs in comparison to the cost of electricity production, which is approximately 10 c€/kWh in European countries.

The careful monitoring of radioactive waste products is not a unique feature to nuclear fission energy, as it is also required upon the use of the widely accepted renewable source of geothermal energy, and therefore is not a unique feature to fission energy. Geothermal/radiogenic heating is a form of energy derived, in greatest part, from the natural nuclear decay of the large, but nonetheless finite supply of uranium, thorium and potassium-40 present within the Earth's crust, and due to the nuclear decay process, this renewable energy source will also eventually run out of fuel. As too is the fate of the nuclear fusion cycle within our Sun, being exhausted in an estimate 5 billion years, if mankind never replenishes it. However as the means of energy production from the geothermal energy resource results in much higher greenhouse gas emissions than nuclear fission, it will not be discussed any further within this nuclear section to prevent confusion with the less polluting nuclear fission energy sources.

In 2014, Brookings Institute published a cost-benefit analysis study The Net Benefits of Low and No-Carbon Electricity Technologies which states, after performing an energy and emissions cost analysis, that "The net benefits of new nuclear, hydro, and natural gas combined cycle plants far outweigh the net benefits of new wind or solar plants", with the most cost effective low carbon power technology being determined to be nuclear power.

Regarding energy used by vehicles, a 2008 cost-benefit analysis by the anti-nuclear advocate Mark Z. Jacobson, of sustainable energy sources and usage combinations in the context of global warming and other dominating issues; it ranked wind power generation combined with battery electric vehicles (BEV) and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs) as the most efficient. Wind was followed by concentrated solar power (CSP), geothermal power, tidal power, photovoltaic, wave power, hydropower coal capture and storage (CCS), nuclear energy and biofuel energy sources. It states: "In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts."

Jacobson's opinions are in part due to his internationally controversial suggestion that state civil nuclear energy stations will result in higher emissions than the international consensus on nuclear fissions Total Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions, primarily due his regarding of civil nuclear energy being inexplicably linked with nuclear weapons and therefore will result in a nuclear war and the burning of cities. Due in part to this background, he states that if the United States wants to reduce global warming, air pollution and energy instability, it should invest only in the best energy options, and that nuclear power is not one of them. Jacobson's analyses state that "nuclear power results in up to 25 times more carbon emissions than wind energy, when reactor construction, uranium refining and transport are considered".

However, scientists from Yale University and agencies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who have since analyzed the total Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources have not arrived at the same nuclear power emissions conclusions as Jacobson has, in this respect, instead finding that nuclear energy has a total life-cycle emission intensity, including construction, mining etc, similar to other sustainable solutions such as hydropower and an emission insensity lower than Solar PV and biomass.

178.167.204.95 (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The recent edits included an excessive amount of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The massive quantity of text was in some cases well supported, but many sources were used to support mentions of new and undeveloped nuclear technologies, while the sources only mentioned in passing, or as part of a longer list of possible energy sources. This suggests a NPOV issue, as well as potentially being an issue of WP:SYNTH. Bending over backwards to shoehorn "anti-nuclear advocate" into the description of Mark Z. Jacobson (using a TED talk as a source, no less) is absurdly inappropriate, and is a violation of NPOV, as well as having WP:BLP problems. Grayfell (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There is an ongoing discussion. Reverting over and over and then accusing others of edit warring is not appropriate. The changes were too drastic and included too many problems to be ignored or contested on an item-by-item basis. That is not a realistic expectation. Grayfell (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Please point out a single case of WP:OR or any other of the claims you have, and if indeed you can make a convincing case, I'll have no problem agreeing to remove that, in a case by case basis. I am however completely perplexed at your blanking as you are seemingly fully aware that the text added my me is in fact the most reliably supported text in the entirety of the article, yet you have blanked it tenaciously. This is unacceptable censorship and having read this talk page appears to be the run-of-the-mill on how this sort of reliable information about nuclear energy has been kept out of the article for so long. Therefore I believe that we may benefit from bringing this to at least WP:3O, what do you think?


 * Lastly, I don't particularly care for Mark Z. Jacobson, but seen as a large controversial paragraph of his work was already in the article when I arrived, it fell on me as an adherent of WP:BALANCE, to do just that and explain why he has those views, with refs, and then explain that his views are not the INTERNATIONAL consensus(with refs) in as calm a fashion as possible. Therefore don't you see that your own rationale The changes were too drastic and included too many problems to be ignored or contested on an item-by-item basis. That is not a realistic expectation applies to this shoddy anti-nuclear article at present? Moreover, this is not a WP:BLP problem, as much as it is to use the TED talk to reference that his opponent in the debate was pro-nuclear, Stewart Brand. If you feel I have an axe-to-grind, then by all means take a stab at re-wording that section, but do not blank again. As there is not WP:RULE giving you the power to simply blank sections, not least because you're here essentially saying you do not wish to build consensus.


 * By the way, if you are proposing that we change "anti-nuclear advocate" to something else, then sure I'm open to that! However I don't see the problem as he would acknowledge that he is anti-nuclear?


 * I'm going to put the material back and remove all mention to Jacobson's demonstrably WP:FRINGE view.


 * 178.167.204.95 (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You should stop edit warring and finish the discussion on the talk page. I would also suggest you self-revert to the last stable version until that time. The existence of sustainable nuclear technology is very very controversial, and its place in an article that's about the broader topic is also worth careful discussion. Yes, it should be mentioned, but making it the first item in the article after the definition suggests that you may not be tackling this in a balanced way. This isn't the article on breeder reactor or nuclear power debate or any of the many, many articles about this technology. Some of your sources may be reliable, but they do a very poor job of establishing due weight for inclusion in the article.


 * I point out that describing a scientist as "anti-nuclear advocate" is NPOV, and you response by removing the entire section? How does that address the problem? Please at least try to collaborate, that's a core tenet of Wikipedia. Are you here to build an encyclopedia, or are you here to here to prove a point about nuclear power? Grayfell (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. This section you wrote is massiv POV an massivly biased in favor of nuclear energy. However there is only a small minority that claims that nuclear energy is sustainable. If you want to improve something, then explain your critics here on the discussion page. But there is no way that you write the article completely new and almost the opposite of what has been here before (and which was an accurate view). So I remove this section again and prompt you not to restore it, because this would be an edit-war. If you do edit-war, you can and ultimately will be banned if you continue doing so. Andol (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I have editted many other sections on this article, not merely the nuclear fission one, so I think the article's edit history should show that I care for building an encyclopedia and to the effect, I may ask you are you here to build an encyclopedia? To elaborate, I did not see anything amiss about removing the demonstrably controversial and totally non-consensus opinion pieces of 1 renewable energy afficionado. I had thought about leaving him in, but seen as you took issue with the section I wrote, I thought to myself: Wait, why do we need his WP:FRINGE non-consensus info here and the responses to it anyway? Can you give me a reason? I detail in my edit summary that I have removed him until such time that this dispute is concluded. Is this not how things are done when it comes to info on living people?


 * Secondly, I have never read a single reliable reference from a scientifically reputable international organization(that means not "Greepeace") that has ever opined as you have that sustainable nuclear technology is very very controversial. So where did you get that from? On the contrary, the resource section I provided, along with the references therein, make it very very clear that, like-it-or-not, there is an enormous amount of fissionable material on Earth.


 * Lastly I do see 1 point of yours that is worth considering, I feel that you may possibly have a point about the position of the nuclear section being too high in the article. However I will make my case for it being there and see what you think?
 * The nuclear section should be high up in the article, as otherwise this article has very little to truly differentiate it from the renewable energy article in terms of energy sources discussed.
 * That, if anything, supports the nuclear section being high in the article. Not least because it is a larger worldwide source of energy, than wind, solar PV, etc and therefore rightly should take precedence over them. Now in saying that, I can possibly see the rationale for putting fossil fuels + carbon-capture storage in nuclear's place if, or when, that technology becomes a major source of energy worldwide. However until that time, it is logical for the nuclear section to be first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.204.95 (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * To respond to Andol, can you stop opining and simply give me a reasonable argument for your suggestion that what I wrote is " massiv POV an massivly biased in favor of nuclear energy. However there is only a small minority that claims that nuclear energy is sustainable". Where is your internationally recognized scientific references that argue in to this effect? Secondly, in terms of your charge of "bias", when one looks at this article's talk page history, it is clear that the opinion of readers is that this article is biased alright, but towards anti-nuclear opinions. I therefore find it incredulous that you claim I'm biased simply by providing the scientific consensus on this matter. Earlier on this talk page you said on 18 March 2015 that there is no neutral scientific work that confirms these claims. In fact I never read in scientific work that nuclear power is a sustainable. I have supplied these works, that you have not read and yet you two continue to blanket censor this un-biased Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change accredited information. For this, I think it is time to get an outside WP:3O, as clearly you 2 have a history of tenaciously removing nuclear related information.
 * 178.167.204.95 (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you really think you prove your point by calling a review-article in Energy and Environmental Science, the leading journal on energy and environmental science, which has been cited almost 600 times since 2009 a "totally non-consensus opinion pieces of 1 renewable energy afficionado"? This is ridiculous. And it is also ridiculous to claim that there is no single scientifically reputable international organization that states that sustainable nuclear technology is very very controversial. If that is your opinion then maybe you should stopp editing here right now. Because this is so far from reality that this discussion won't lead anywhere. Andol (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You have betrayed yourself Andol. As that single article is WP:FRINGE. Perhaps this analogy will help you, Andrew Wakefield also got his fringe paper published in the Lancet when it was reputable, and his article has been cited 1000s of times, and many of those cites are akin to  NASA climatologist Jim Hansen, who was citing it to blow Jacobson's nuclear emission figures apart. Yet despite a high cite count, that doesn't prove he was right nor should it give his views prominence in the autism article. Or are you of the opinion that it should? Look,  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) are the international consensus makers on the matter of carbon dioxide emissions. Deference to their far larger meta-analysis is what we should do according to wiki-policy. Not least because that 1 renewable energy afficionado, you seem to like so much has had his figures blown apart. It is therefore WP:UNDUE to have him getting paragraphs of unchallenged support in this article, especially while the consensus IPCC figures are nowhere to be seen.


 * Lastly, despite your continued charges and personal attacks, 'I'm still waiting for a reliable reference that supports your notions that sustainable nuclear technology is very very controversial because there isn't enough fuel or that it pollutes too much. As the UN,Stanford,IPCC & ExternE/University of Stuttgart funded by the European Commission projects ALL state to the contrary. You really do seem to be confused on this issue, while yes nuclear tech is indeed controversial alright, that controversy is not about the question of: if it is sustainable or not. In much the same way that hydropower is controversial because of the Banqiao dam disaster that killed ~200,000, but that doesn't change the fact that hydro is sustainable. Are you honestly not aware of this? So again for the last time, were are your alleged references that support your WP:POV that fission breeders are "not sustainable" and the UN organization who stated that they are, was totally wrong?


 * I did check some of your sources and found that they don't state what you claim them to state. First there are two sources which you use to claim nuclear energy is sustainable. The first one, the Brundtland report, never states that nuclear energy is sustainable. Instead it lists a lot of problems of nuclear energy. So it is almost the opposite of what you wrote. The second sources, a short statement in a coursework (!) lists pros and cons of nuclear energy being renewable (not sustainable) and provides no answer. So your central papers don't say that nuclear energy is sustainable. This is bad, very bad.


 * Also the IPCC doesn't call nuclear energy sustainable. That is because it doesn't provide answers to which energy source is sustainable, but which one can help mitigate climate change. Causing no climate change is a important factor in being sustainable, but it doesn't mean every technology causing no greenhouse gases is sustainable. You ignore this important difference. The IPCC report is also much more careful then you are. It states: "Experience of the past three decades has shown that nuclear power can be beneficial if employed carefully, but can cause great problems if not. It has the potential for an expanded role as a cost-effective mitigation option, but the problems of potential reactor accidents, nuclear waste management and disposal and nuclear weapon proliferation will still be constraining factors." And it also carefully says that "If advanced breeder reactors could be designed" then the uranium resources would grow, not that this will surely happen. So also this source doesn't provide a proof for nuclear energy being sustainable. And the sentence "The extraction of this natural uranium from seawater would also have the long term benefit of reducing the concentration of this naturally occurring heavy metal pollutant in the world's oceans." is completely unsourced and OR.


 * The next few sources also name the amount of thorium on earth, but with no connection to energy. This is completely OR. And further no proof for being sustainable. It is also interessting that you must use 30 year old papers. They were written in a time when there was much hope for nuclear energy and before two major nuclear accidents have happened. These papers are absolutely outdated. And more, the Cohen Paper remained almost without influence, having been cited only about 40 times in 30 years.


 * Then you use wind power sources to point out that wind energy is less sustainable then nuclear energy. However these papers never said that. Also this paragraf is completely OR. And so on and so on. It ends with Jacobson being completely rebutted. But who is the one being the rebutter? Its only you. You listed several newspaper articles of Jacobson and state that merely everything he says ore writes is wrong. I cannot imagine a better WP:OR than this. And worst is, you claim that Jacobsons position, which you vehemently refuse is based on the fact that Jacobson includes "primarily due his regarding of civil nuclear energy being inexplicably linked with nuclear weapons and therefore will result in a nuclear war and the burning of cities." He may have said that in a newspaper, but it isn't in the review-article you try to defeat. So this isn't just OR, POV and completely biases, it is also plain wrong and manipulative.


 * To make the conlusion short: The whole text you wrote is an essay full of original research and doesn't prove the point, i.e. that nuclear energy is sustainable. There is no way to include this in the article, because violates fundamental principles of wikipedia. Andol (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You're again dead wrong Andol, my first"central" paper does indeed state that nuclear breeder reactors are sustainable/renewable. The UN report "|that first defined what "Sustainable development" was in 1987”". Is the very same organization I referenced in my attempted edits of this article, This organization stated as follows - Today's primary sources of energy are mainly non-renewable: natural gas, oil, coal, peat, and conventional nuclear power. There are also renewable sources, including wood, plants, dung, falling water, geothermal sources, solar, tidal, wind, and wave energy, as well as human and animal muscle-power. Nuclear reactors that produce their own fuel ('breeders') and eventually fusion reactors are also in this category.Chapter 7, UN.
 * I guess you conveniently glossed over this? You know, I hope you'll understand that I feel that there really isn't much logic behind proceeding to respond to any of your other arguments of mischaracterization, unless you're willing to accept the above is indeed in the reference. As cherry picking from areas of the document where, by the way, they're not even discussing breeder reactors, is, to use your own expression, just "bad, very bad".


 * Oh wait, seen as you not only did this but also claimed I'm practicing some kind of "manipulative" POV when it came to writing that - Jacobson's position, which you vehemently refuse is based on the fact that Jacobson (believes there are high GHG/greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear energy stations)  "primarily due his regarding of civil nuclear energy being inexplicably linked with nuclear weapons and therefore they will result in a nuclear war and the burning of cities.". Well friend, you see I'm not the person saying this, I'm reporting, as you acknowledge, what Jacobson himself said in those news articles, what he doesn't even deny in the referenced TED talk with Stewart Brand, and indeed, even what NASA climatologist Jim Hansen also explicitly pointed-out in a journal response to a paper Jacobson co-wrote.


 * So please, before I have to start assuming bad faith on your part, go and have a look at this. See, half way down the 2nd paragraph were "jacobson" & the "incineration of megacities" are mentioned. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (12), pp 6718–6719 As Hansen points out, it is pretty clear that Jacobson's views are indeed plain WP:FRINGE on this matter, not least because they're totally out of step with what the IPCC report is the CO2 emissions from the total nuclear energy life cycle. Therefore your charge of "manipulative" POV on my behalf is entirely without evidence.


 * I eagerly hope that this time you actually read what is attached before continuing to make your demonstrably baseless claims. Thanks.


 * 31.200.131.159 (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request
A request has been made for a third opinion. I will respond, although a third opinion is not really applicable because there are already three editors discussing the article, User:Andol, User:Grayfell, and an unregistered editor. There isn't a specific question, and the title of this talk page section appears to be inconsistent with the content of the discussion. That is, this section is headed Nuclear fusion, but the issue really appears to be nuclear fission. Looking at the history of the article, the issue would appear to be whether to include a large amount of text that has been added by one editor and removed by two editors. There is a 2-to-1 consensus against inclusion of the text. If the author of the text disagrees, I would suggest that the next step might be a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I will further point out that nuclear fission is not sustainable in the usual sense. It does not produce greenhouse gas, but, as noted above, it has other environmental issues, in particular the risk of accidents and the problem of waste disposal. For those reasons, if the question is how to get to 100% sustainable energy, nuclear fission is a transition strategy, and so including too much discussion of nuclear fission would be undue weight. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

While nuclear fusion is technically not sustainable, it would be to all practical purposes sustainable because the supply of hydrogen and deuterium is limited, but unlimited to all practical purposes. However, nuclear fusion has not been achieved as having supra-unity yield in spite of fifty years of research and development, and so including any significant coverage of nuclear fusion would be undue weight. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

At least, those are my opinions. They are not a third opinion, because they are a fourth opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Robert, I'm having the same problem with you as I had with them. Please tell me, how did you come to this opinion of yours? What WP:RS do you have to support your opinion and have you not read the references in the proposed edit, including the UN/Our Common Future ref that states fission breeder reactors* are as renewable/sustainable as solar and "falling water"? Currently operating examples include the BN-600 reactor and BN-800 reactor*. Lastly, why are you bringing accidents into the question of sustainabilty, are you not aware that the banqiao dam/hydropower facility killed 200,000 people? If you were at all consistent you should similarly argue that hydropower is not sustainable because there was this big accident this one time? Hardly. Moreover I deal with the "waste" issue in the proposed edit. Contrary to what you seem to be suggesting the other sustainable energy sources require a lot more than just wishful-thinking to operate you know. They, just like nuclear fission, have externality costs too. All this has been referenced by me above and in my edits to the article, yet no one here seems all that bothered to read.
 * 178.167.204.95 (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Two more reputable sources, that I did not originally include in my earlier edits above (as I thought the UN ref would be good enough) that also analysed nuclear fission breeder reactors and found them to indeed be sustainable are.
 * Sustainable Energy - without the hot air by Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, David JC MacKay. pg 161-70 & Sustainable Energy from Nuclear Fission Power Author: Marvin L. Adams from the National Academy of Engineering.
 * 178.167.204.95 (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this page because I monitor the WP:3O page. I would suggest that the IP add their points in a piecemeal fashion, taking into account comments here. If you add the stuff in one whole go, people are understandably reluctant to let it stand of POV reasons. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 11:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your input and towards those ends I started a RfC below. Thanks for trying to help!
 * 31.200.131.159 (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Article edit requests

 * Apart from the above discussion I started, I also think that this article should most definitely include the following 3 points:


 * The potential of sustainable fossil fuels when they are sucessfully coupled with a Carbon dioxide capture & storage exhaust system, such as the economically abandoned Schwarze Pumpe power station. It should be mentioned that according to the utility that ran that pilot project, that the energy requirements necessary to sucessfully capture and store the carbon dioxide, are presently too prohibitive.


 * That "sustainable" biomass is very rare, in fact I'd like to see mention to specific cases were energy crops etc. are sustainably managed. As to state 'all biomass is sustainable' which is what the article presently suggests, is rather disingenuous. Most places just chop the stuff down & don't re-seed. Specific Short rotation coppice projects should be the examples chosen for sustainable biomass cultivation & even then we have the Food vs. fuel issue, and on the other hand Amazon deforestation, as an example of non-sustainable biomass energy.

''The generation of renewable energy on the scale needed to replace fossil energy, in an effort to manage global climate change, is likely to have significant negative environmental impacts. For example, biomass energy generation would have to increase 7-fold to supply current primary energy demand, and up to 40-fold by 2100 given economic and energy growth projections. Humans already appropriate 30 to 40% of all photosynthetically fixed carbon worldwide, indicating that expansion of additional biomass harvesting is likely to stress ecosystems, in some cases precipitating collapse and extinction of animal species that have been deprived of vital food sources. The total amount of solar energy captured by all vegetation in the United States each year is around 58 quads (61.5 EJ), with about half of this presently harvested as agricultural crops and forest products. The un-used half/remaining biomass is needed to maintain ecosystem functions and diversity. Since annual energy use in the United States is ca. 100 quads, biomass energy could supply only a very small fraction of total energy needs.''
 * That the ability of each energy source to sustainably replace all fossil fuel usage should be assessed. For example, seen as we're on the topic, here's biomass' assessment.

''To supply the current worldwide energy demand solely with non-genetically engineered biomass would require more than 10% of the Earth’s land surface, which is comparable to the area used for all of world agriculture (i.e., ca. 1500 million hectares), indicating that further expansion of biomass energy generation will be difficult without precipitating eco-system loss and ethical issues given current world hunger statistics, over growing plants for biofuel versus food. ''

92.251.153.186 (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There are reviews on cite 1 for example by the Sierra club or news from a conference from yesterday also echo that tech solutions alone aren't the solution to climate change. But is this within the scope of the article? I don't think so - this entire topic is not relevant to outline the technologies. However, there could be a section on global demand and studies on feasibility and such. If you think "all biomass is sustainable", in current revision, go ahead add a "citation needed" notification. But oddly i do not agree with you here, the article does not say that all biomass is sustainable. And what do you mean biomass is rare? This again is not really the point of the article. Ofc, you can add a line which states current global sustainable biomass usage, for a reliable source. But why then open for each potential addition a new lengthly section? Be bold add and improve the article. Regarding your first point, isn't this covered in the section Carbon neutral and negative fuels? See also BECCS And no, we do not have to assess fossil fuel usage per energy source. Why? If you want to add, add a line to, again: Carbon neutral and negative fuels. Be sure to use new sources and be brief, considering the current article length.  prokaryotes (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And why do you add this palm oil image? Please focus, thanks. And notice how your cites are except for 1 book cite, all older than 13-15 years ... we do not need old stuff, unless we cover history. prokaryotes (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

To the IP editor: I strongly encourage you to make a username. This will make it easier for other editors to interact with you, give you more credibility in many people's eyes, and enable you to continue editing should the page become semi-protected. I haven't looked into your suggestions above but you have consensus for including sustainable nuclear energy in the article. According to WP:BRD you can simply start editing the article. You don't need to keep asking permission beforehand. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article include the international consensus that a type of nuclear fission is sustainable?
As the above discussion details the dispute, I will simply direct anyone interested in seeing the proposed changes to this article there. Specifically, I request for commentators to see the last edit of mine to the article for a more up-to-date version of what is proposed for context, as what is in the Proposed changes on this talk page, was truncated during the dispute. 178.167.204.95 (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This RFC is poorly phrased, and the question is painfully loaded. Please review WP:RFC, specifically Requests for comment, where referring to a prior discussion is listed as a bad example. The prior discussion should not be part of the RFC for both technical and practical reasons. The question used in the subject header (also advised against by RFC) is loaded, and implies that the international consensus is uncontroversial, and that the proposed edits are straightforward. This situation isn't that simple. Grayfell (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless this is an RfC. So I will comment.
 * WP should be based on mainstream scientific opinion. What is the that in this case? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nuclear energy has some features of sustainable energy, but it isn't sustainable as such. For example the climate impact is low, and with breeders there could be nuclear energy for several 1000 years. However, most technology for nuclear energy to be sustainable still doesn't exist or work, so there is an open question if it will ever be sustainable. Right now, there are no breeders (one or two prototyps exist, several have been shut down to to constant problems), there is no fuel cycle through breeding, there is no solution to nuclear waste, there is no fusion reactor, no working thorium reactor and there are several issues on security. Almost everything that could eventually make nuclear energy sustainable has still to be developed or introduced into the market. So if nuclear energy can be a sustainable energy, is still to be proven in the future (or not). See also the review of Pearce for further reading . Some scientists ignore this and claim nuclear energy sustainable, most other call it carbon-free or things like that, a notable difference. Andol (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There could be nuclear energy for 100 years without breeder reactors although I should point out that breeder reactors have been built an run successfully. Of course there are some technical issues with nuclear energy but there are issues with all forms of energy generation. I see no reason why nuclear energy should be treated differently from every other form of power generation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your reference could hardly be called a mainstream science source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose to including the material in the article. As noted, this RFC is poorly phrased and is non-neutrally worded.  Since the RFC refers back to previous discussion on this talk page, it still isn't clear whether it is about nuclear fission, which does exist, or about nuclear fusion, which hasn't been achieved.  If it is about nuclear fission, is it about existing fission technologies or about proposed breeder technologies?  Since none of the possible technologies are sustainable in the strict sense, inclusion of a large amount of new text proposing nuclear power as sustainable energy provides undue weight to what is really a transitional approach rather than a solution.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "|The very same (UN) Bruntland commission that first defined what "Sustainable development" was in 1987”". Is the very same organization I referenced in my attempted edits of this article, This organization stated as follows - Today's primary sources of energy are mainly non-renewable: natural gas, oil, coal, peat, and conventional nuclear power. There are also renewable sources, including wood, plants, dung, falling water, geothermal sources, solar, tidal, wind, and wave energy, as well as human and animal muscle-power. Nuclear reactors that produce their own fuel ('breeders') and eventually fusion reactors are also in this category.Chapter 7 "Sustainable Development", UN..


 * Please note that this UN commission did not say as Andol has argued that breeder reactors will eventually become a sustainable source of energy someday, they emphatically state that they already were sustainable in the year 1987. We can speculate that this is due to the fact that breeder reactors such as the then & now operating BN-600, have a greater efficiency at turning uranium into electricity when compared to "conventional nuclear" technology which results in fast breeder reactors being capable of powering the world for about 1000 vs ~150 years.


 * Again a completely separate issue is if these fast breeders were coupled with a fuel recycling plant, and we therefore create a closed-nuclear fuel cycle, such as the conceptual IFR, under this as of yet unrealized case, then we're into the realm of 160,000 years according to this IPCC document (pg271 fig 4.10). In any case, it really doesn't matter if breeder reactors are yet to be integrated in-situ with a recycling facility, as long as they produce more fuel than they consume/"produce their own fuel" they're 100% already sustainable/renewable as the UN report emphatically states. Moreover, I think we can all agree that 1000 years of energy is just plenty sustainable for the time-being. Due to all this, I really find it incredulous that this is being opposed.


 * Secondly, Andol's other arguments have pretty much muddied the waters by trying to link the subject of breeder reactor's economic competitiveness with "conventional nuclear", in-with the completely separate issue of whether or not this technology is a sustainable source of energy. Using his own reasoning you should by analogy also conclude that amorphous silicon solar panels are not a sustainable source of energy simply because Cadmium telluride photovoltaics panels may have better economics. Which I hope you'll all see is a blatant non-sequitur. Nevertheless, the BN-600 reactor is commercially running and has been for decades, with an IAEA accredited 74.6% energy availability factor, which is higher than pretty much every sustainable source of energy discussed in this article, bar maybe hydropower. Its larger brethren might I add, the BN-800 reactor, just started up a few months ago.


 * One last point that I would like to make with respect to conventional nuclear fission that Martin Hogbin brought up. While the above 1987 UN report is indeed indisputably correct on the issue of the sustainabilty of breeders, it is grossly outdated on what now constitutes as "conventional nuclear", due to the Generation III reactors that are operating now along with the semi-closed fuel cycle achieved with present fuel recycling/reprocessing rates, both of which obviously did not exist in 1987. These together have created a scenario were "conventional nuclear" technology is at the blurred edge between un-sustainable and sustainable. However as many countries do not recycle their fuel, such as the US, while France does, resulting in |the sustainabilty of the "conventional nuclear" cycle in France getting independently assessed as more sustainable than the "once-through" fuel cycle of the USA. There is therefore great regional differences in just how sustainable "conventional nuclear" is. I hope by explaining this has got across the fact that the present sustainabilty of "conventional nuclear" worldwide is by no means some fixed value and if the US and others did start recycling, there would obviously be more that the "150 years" of uranium left in conventional ores to fuel the worldwide "conventional nuclear" rate of consumption according to the IAEA.
 * 31.200.131.159 (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 31.200.131.159, firstly can I suggest that you register, although ther is no obligation to do so. Although you remain completely anonymous, it helps people understand who said what and probably gives your posts more credibility.  There is no real disadvantage that I can think of.


 * I agree though that different criteria for being called 'sustainable' appear to be being applied to nuclear power from those being applied to other forms of power. No form of power generation is totally safe, has no technical problems, produces no pollution, and does not affect the environment in any way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There is no such consensus that I know of, and if there was it would be easy to give a simple link to the internationally agreed statement of the fact. All I see is a vague reference to some Wikipedia talk page section (not specified), and all I can see above is extensive bitter dispute and name-calling. No clear citation for the alleged fact in question. --Nigelj (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Nigelj, no offense but we cannot take your opposition seriously when obviously you just completely gazed over the "internationally agreed statement" above,"|The very same (UN) Bruntland commission that first defined what "Sustainable development" was in 1987”". Is the very same organization I referenced in my attempted edits of this article, This organization stated as follows - Today's primary sources of energy are mainly non-renewable: natural gas, oil, coal, peat, and conventional nuclear power. There are also renewable sources, including wood, plants, dung, falling water, geothermal sources, solar, tidal, wind, and wave energy, as well as human and animal muscle-power. Nuclear reactors that produce their own fuel ('breeders') and eventually fusion reactors are also in this category.Chapter 7 "Sustainable Development", UN.. Another reference is an influential book by the Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, David JC MacKay pp 164 were indeed after analyzing every other energy source, found that breeder reactors are the only sustainable energy source capable of providing all of humanities energy needs for thousands to millions of years. I'd appreciate that you acknowledge at least these 2 references.


 * Martin on your suggestion that I register, please see a reply to that on your talk page.
 * 31.200.131.159 (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - A reason to register an account is that, in this case, the unregistered editor has shifted from the 178.*.*.* block to the 31.*.*.* block. The two IP addresses are registered to the same provider, but, without doing a whois, they would typically be assumed to be two different editors.  IP addresses change dynamically, but this is a bigger dynamic change than is usually seen.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That is one paper that concludes that "the current French twice-through fuel cycle has a lower environmental footprint than an equivalent once-through fuel cycle". It does not conclude that there is an "international consensus that a type of nuclear fission is sustainable", which is your extraordinary interpretation of a 17% improvement in uranium usage. The book I don't have, and the Without Hot Air blog is mostly about energy conservation and savings. The page you link puts "sustainable" in scare quotes for a reason. I do not ask that you take my opposition to your campaign seriously, but I do ask that you accept my !vote as it is, and that you have a look at WP:CIVILITY before making comments like that in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelj (talk • contribs) 17:15, 29 June 2015‎


 * The peer-reviewed paper you bring up is there to give weight to the credentials of the UN tasked organization that first defined sustainable development, nothing more. You're also cherry picking unrelated quotes from it to try and make it seem like it was referenced inappropriately, quotes that might I add, display that you glossed over the word "sustainable" within it, why? Anyway, this request for comment is about that UN document, chapter 7 of which states that nuclear reactors that "produce their own fuel "(breeders)" are in the same energy category as "falling water"/hydropower etc. I hope you can forgive me for beginning to notice that not 1 of those that "oppose" have actually engaged with what this influential UN document states.


 * Secondly, the book, it is not a "blog" as you've falsely claimed, ...without hot air by the Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, David JC MacKay does not use your alleged scare quotes when discussing breeder reactors.pp 164, if you read the entire book you'll also find that his standards for what constitutes "sustainable energy" are set so high that only something that could completely replace fossil fuels is regarded as truly sustainable, without the scare quotes. Indeed many other "sustainable" sources also get scare quotes by him, including biomass.
 * The Global Forest Coalition likewise puts the "sustainability" of biomass in scare quotes | here, as I hope you can now see, it is by no means only the lesser nuclear technologies that sometimes get scare quotes. So even though the completely separate lesser nuclear technologies do get scare quotes by MacKay, I still don't understand your point of bringing that up when this RfC is about breeder reactors.


 * Would it be amiss for me to wonder why you're not engaging with the documents were they discuss the sustainabilty of breeder reactors?
 * 31.200.131.159 (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not here for an education, or to be set reading lists. If you had a reference that clearly supported your assertion in the RFC question, I am sure that you would have given it at the start. That you keep setting me more and more complicated stuff to read makes it clear that this is about your opinion having synthesised details from lots and lots of publications, not a documented fact. I followed the first set of links you set me, I'm not going to spend ages being set more and more reading to do. That will never change the facts. --Nigelj (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, I don't think this is productive, but I'll make my position clear anyway. Oppose. There are some sources here that support the idea that various types of nuclear power have been considered as sustainable, but that wasn't the only reason the IPs edits were reverted. This is one reason tying this into the above discussion is a bad idea, because this isn't just about the academic consensus on a loosely defined "type of nuclear fission". Using the article to explain in context that nuclear power is in some ways sustainable, according to some points of view, would be fine. The edits introduced large quantities relatively weakly sourced material to present nuclear as being a primary and uncontroversial source of sustainable energy. The above sources support mentioning nuclear as one aspect of sustainability. They do not warrant altering the article to make nuclear energy the first specific section, nor do they warrant excessive ref-bombing to support that perspective, while using similarly selective tactics to undermine those who hold a more critical perspective. This isn't just about verifiability, this is also about WP:WEIGHT. Even the sources presented here indicate that nuclear's sustainability is under-researched and hinges on too many unknowns to be accepted without further comment. This is true for many areas of sustainable energy research, but especially nuclear. It is an active area of research (or areas, rather) which has a relatively small but extremely vocal core of active supporters. This should not be used to diminish that perspective or the potentially revolutionary research, but major context was being selectively left-out from the proposed edits. Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Grayfell You have puzzled me. On the one hand you say that you oppose, yet on the other you simultaneously agree with the RfC when you wrote -"Using the article to explain in context that nuclear power is in some ways sustainable...would be fine." When this is why I created this RfC, the question is essentially at the bare mimimum; should the statements of the UN and other reputable sources have at least an appearance in this article? As you will recall that I had to create this RfC as you and User:Andol did not argue that some sections of my edit had undue weight but that you're willing to work with me on others. On the contrary, there wasn't the slightest article edit on your behalf to even acknowledge that a specific nuclear energy technology should be in the article, you both just went about blanking/disappearing all mention to this area, again and again. Forcing me to look for outside comment.


 * In light of this, will you not now change your opposition to Agree?
 * P.S. As for the contents in the rest of your paragraph above, I will respond to your WP:BALANCE/weight views back were you first brought that up, were you seemingly forget that I replied then with I feel that you may possibly have a point about the position of the nuclear section being too high in the article. So if you could just copy your above views out, and paste them back in the 'Nuclear fusion & fission' section of this talk page, were you began the train of thought and therefore were such discussion belongs, that'd be great.
 * 31.200.131.159 (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I stand by what I wrote. This isn't a vote. Trying to break down a complex issue into simpler components is a great idea, but this was a bad way to go about doing that. The question you posed is loaded, and rephrasing it now to be less loaded only underscored the problem. The above RFC tries to tie this question into the sweeping edits you made and the lengthy above discussion, but then your response to me says that the RFC question can be reduced to a simple sentence. There's no way to answer a question like this. Blaming another editor for starting this RFC shows signs of a battleground mentality, also. Expanding information about nuclear energy isn't out of the question, but the way you were doing it wasn't going to work. I'm not interested in trying to juggle multiple discussions on the same page about the same issue, for obvious reasons. Grayfell (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I fail to see how nuclear fission is in any way sustainable. There have been discussions for the alleged emissions reductions from some new types of nuclear plants, but are those sustainable, i doubt it. Also, as per above this RfC is poorly written, hard to respond to a broad redirect to an extensive discussion. prokaryotes (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Another unsubstantianted remark has arrived, the joy. Could you please just read the proposed edit linked above on this talk page, were the internationally renowned UN, no less, support that that a specific nuclear technology is sustainable? Is it too much to ask for you to do this before injecting your unsubstantiated opinions? As all the details about "emissions" are covered there in environmental impact.
 * 31.200.131.159 (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You reference course work, a report from 1987 and frame it as a consensus. This is at best borderline OR, and i had a look the thorium part of the current article reads ok. If you want my attention cite some scientific studies from recent years and leave out outdated data to make your point. prokaryotes (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose The current article already mentions that some think thorium is sustainable, thus this rfc can now be closed. prokaryotes (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. I don't support saying that specific technologies are sustainable; these are actually someone's pet ideas being held up as specially renewable nuclear energy. And breeder reactors do not "produce their own fuel"; they produce fuel that can be used in other reactors as well. (In other words, a sustainable large-scale nuclear energy program wouldn't be based on breeder reactors alone.) But, overall, nuclear fission in some form can be sustainable. If there are known ore supplies for 100 or 150 years, that provides a very long time for prospecting new ore and developing new technologies. Also, unlike oil and gas, nuclear fuels aren't entirely depleted and can be recycled.


 * It is not right to define "sustainable" in a way that automatically rules out fission because it's nuclear. It does have an environmental impact, but so do the 100%-natural power sources. Hydroelectricity, wind and solar power, if scaled up to a certain point, have foreseeable and unforeseen environmental risks. Hydroelectricity requires flooding areas for reservoirs. Wind energy, on a large enough scale, would alter global air currents in an unacceptable way. Solar power theoretically could alter global temperatures more than CO2 ever could. What I mean by this is that "sustainable" does not mean "sustainable forever at any scale." It really means "sustainable compared to hydrocarbons," and so I think it's necessary to say that fission in some form is sustainable. As I said before, I don't think it should mention specific technologies, because at this point in time we don't know what a sustainable form of nuclear fission would look like. Nor do we know what a sustainable form of wind or solar energy would look like. Roches (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Different criteria for 'sustainable' seem to be used for nuclear than other forms of energy generation. As Roches says above, no form of energy generation is completely safe, pollution free, and has no impact on the environment. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To that effect Roches, do you think it is prudent upon us to have as much ink in this article explaining the sustainability of nuclear fission, as there is presently on conventional renewable technologies? Or at least as much ink on what is presently in the article on say, tidal power? I mean we need to at least get across that the organization that defined sustainable development categorized breeder reactors that produce their own fuel as sustainable(this means that even those with just a breeding ratio of 1 are sustainable, they need not have to produce more fuel than they consume to meet the UN's criteria).(P.S I'm the same, sole IP user as ever, if anyone is curious).


 * I would also like to remind commentators that the (1970s-2009)Phénix breeder reactor didn't just have a higher fuel efficiency(burn up)" value than conventional nuclear reactors, but that it also recycled its spent fuel up to 3 times according to both R. Natarajan, 2015 and (not behind a paywall), here as well, "some of it recycled three times". So clearly the technology to reach highly sustainable status, has already been proven. Just have a look at this IPCC document, with that level of fuel recycling by breeder reactors, it results in thousands of years of operation possible with conventional uranium mines already discovered. IPCC document, 2,600 years to 8,000 years (pg271 fig 4.10) Now, granted, this is not yet economically competitive, but let's not forget, neither is 99% of the technologies already discussed in this article. Lastly, to further display that this isn't just "my pet" view. Similarly John McCarthy from Stanford Uni also details why breeder reactors are a sustainable energy source, along with David Mackay as discussed earlier, the UN etc. etc.


 * prokaryotes, thorium supplies theoretically make breeder reactors even more sustainable, yet without specifically discussing breeder reactors in the article, the whole technological rationale behind why thorium is regarded as also sustainable, will be completely lost on readers. In sum we need to at least reference what the org that defined sustainable development said about breeder reactors. I still have yet to hear a cogent argument for why so many here oppose this as the bare minimum.
 * 178.167.194.142 (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This makes sense, however there is no consensus. See for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Breeder_reactor_controversy Additional many reactors are threatened by sea level rise, which breaks the outlined chain of sustainability. Further I disagree with you about your figure that 99% of the tech outlined is not eco competitive, but this seems to be another talk. prokaryotes (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support with qualification. Grayfell raised legitimate points about WP:WEIGHT, and the previous version did have some problems such as the placement of nuclear energy at the top of the "Renewable energy technologies" section, excessive use of quotes in a way that seemed promotional, and reference-bombing. It does have to be made clear that the types of nuclear power currently in widespread use are not sustainable. I believe that the only commercial breeder reactor currently in operation is the BN-600 and I'm not sure if it has a breeding ratio above 1. I found a paper that suggested that a reactor of its type could theoretically reach 1.07, but I suspect the actual reactor doesn't. The article should try avoid giving the appearance that this technology is presently in use. However, I am not aware of good sources saying that breeder reactors with a breeding ratio higher than 1 are not sustainable. The marginalization of sustainable nuclear energy in the current version of the article is conspicuous. Much of the material produced by the IP could be restored, edited, and placed in a more natural position in the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you Sammy1339. As this talk page history shows, I was willing to work with Grayfell earlier and had engaged with him about specific concerns of his. Revising the article content as our discussions progressed. However, together with the tenacious blanking of each of my revised edits along with the dubious threat of "edit-waring" being levelled at me, in the article's edit history. I had to take this to 3O & RfC, as otherwise I may have been banned. Moreover, this article's talk page archives are littered with editors who have also raised the "conspicuous" marginalization of sustainable nuclear technologies within this article. It appears that the trend is; some progress is made and then some editor comes along and blanks the nuclear section again, ad-nauseum.


 * Incidentally, to further strengthen the collaborative built edit that, hopely we'll now be able to include in the article. This(possibly outdated) 2013 IAEA document states that the (1970s-2009)Phénix breeder reactor, was (on page 3) the only reactor ever to demonstrate "all this(sic) cycles on an industrial level". Referring of course to the sustainable cycles mentioned on page 2. The: Breeding -> fuel recycling --> breeding --> recycling, and so on, energy generating system.
 * So really, sustainable nuclear breeder technologies are already old-hat. Economically competitive sustainable nuclear technologies, are of course still in the R&D phase, a category that also includes 99% of the tech presently getting massive chunks of text devoted to them in this article. A very "conspicuous" article indeed.
 * 178.167.195.237 (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sammy1339, aren't we discussing the current version, thus your support seems at odds with your comment. Maybe we should avoid support/oppose entirely and the IP should present a new version based on the input of this RfC. prokaryotes (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll clarify that I don't support mentioning specific technologies in the lead, or in a sense where they're made to stand out as especially promising. The article covers a lot of specific technologies, and nuclear-based specific technologies should have as much text as any others. To me, most if not all of these technologies are pet-ideas in a sense. Many of them have millions of dollars, prominent names and large research groups behind them. They still involve someone insisting that their idea is superior to all others primarily because it is their idea and not necessarily because it is actually promising (and often in spite of significant and legitimate objections). This is a viewpoint that comes from experience in science, and I don't mean it to be derogatory.

So, what I mean by that is that the people who advocate breeder reactors are people who have done extensive work with breeder reactors, and they may be overlooking the advantages of, say, thorium. This is why I think specific technologies need equal weight, and certainly nuclear-based technologies deserve as much weight as any others, 'artificial leaves' included. No current technology is especially promising.

That current technologies are not economically competitive is not significant. Just as technologies should not be excluded because they are nuclear, they should not have to be economically competitive now or in the foreseeable future. The future costs of energy and the costs of these technologies can't be predicted. I want to stress again that the environmental impact of any future source of energy, nuclear or otherwise, also can't be predicted. This is an important reason to include nuclear energy. Ultimately, I think the instinctive opposition to nuclear technologies as green technologies comes from the fact that the origins of the environmental movement had much in common with nuclear disarmament and nuclear power is inextricably linked with nuclear weapons. This article is based on the idea that our need for energy is also a threat to human existence, and it needs to document all current research into sustainable energy with due weight. Roches (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I still have no idea where you're going with this Pet train. While that may be how you view a lot of things developing, I'm struggling to grasp why you brought it up. First-and-foremost, I'm an "advocate" of making this article encyclopedic by including a properly weighted discussion on the whole gamut of technologies mentioned in Our Common Future, a document that, lest we forget, first defined sustainable development. Secondly, Thorium doesn't have any substantial advantages over Uranium. Now, if they're used together, that would most certainly expand the potential lifespan of any nuclear reactor technology, such as the current status quo Light Water Reactor(LWR). In-of-itself however, it has just a slightly reduced proliferation and waste risk over uranium fuel cycles. Moreover you can't run any reactor, LWR or otherwise on just thorium. You need a fissile material to catalyze the whole fuel cycle. The real potential of thorium lays, just like uranium, in breeder reactors. Perhaps you're confused and think Breeder reactors are a uranium-only type of thing? Lastly, I don't think I overlooked mentioning thorium in my earlier edits to the article? Did I?


 * Thirdly, you can indeed quantify in monetary terms, the environmental impact of each & every energy source. The EU's multi-year ExternE/'Externality of Energy' reports do just that and they're still the most reliable figures available to us.


 * Lastly, I have never seen substantial evidence that the origins of the "environmental movement" had "much in common" with the anti-nuclear movement, I think people were beginning to get concerned about aspects of energy & the environment long before 1945. However I will say this about the Chicken little fuss made about the nature of the "inextricable link"/dual-use elements of nuclear knowledge. Civil nuclear energy has, as much of a technological link with weapons as wind turbines have with the endless War pursuit for bigger winged bombers. As the very same air-foil knowledge, first created for bomber purposes, now finds its use in civil wind energy design. Yet no one makes a big fuss about that. Despite those bombers having terrorized and killed far more than nuclear weapons ever did. So I find the whole fuss made solely about the "dual-use" nature of nuclear knowledge rather unbalanced.
 * 178.167.198.128 (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * User:prokaryotes, that's a good idea. Do you have any particular suggestions for what I should, & should not, include? As I'd hate to spend time writing something that eventually gets tossed out again.
 * 178.167.198.128 (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Issues begin with the article lede, which is not referenced. Basically i have np with mention some types of nuclear energy, however it is unclear to what extent they can be considered sustainable and the current article states that some think there is a consensus regarding sustainability. Also the proposal discussed here is way to long, and details belong in sub articles. As I mentioned above we need scientific studies, which are not older like 5-10 years. I also think sustainable means CO2 neutral, as per Hansen suggestions - which would be in line with none exhausted energy forms. prokaryotes (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We do not need recent studies to verify this. There is an essay, WP:SCIRS, that proposes applying MEDRS criteria broadly to scientific topics, but it is not policy and shouldn't be. Unlike in medicine, most scientific fields do not have up-to-date comprehensive reviews published every few years on almost every topic, and many disciplines do not rely on statistical data that has a large number of uncontrollable variables the way medical studies often do. If we have an older source from the nuclear engineering or physics literature saying that such and such type of reactor works, we do not need a new review article every few years saying that it still works, any more than historians need a new source every few years saying that Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead. As for your other concern, I'm almost certain that "sustainable" and "carbon neutral" are completely different things, but I'll reconsider my opinion if you provide a reliable source saying otherwise. Although if I understand correctly all nuclear energy is carbon neutral or very nearly so. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above in my comment, the problem is that the proposal uses not a scientific study to claim it's sustainable, instead some strange 3-paragraph course work and a 30 year old report. The current article uses a glossary definition by REEEP which focuses on renewable energy. Well, and for carbon neutral, I guess the definition this article uses is indeed to limited. All nuclear energy does not equal carbon neutral, if you factor in construction with a lot of cement, mining processes, transportation, storage etc. However if you consider only waste and focus on lifetime CO2e footprint it is much less. prokaryotes (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * From | Nucl. Phys. A in 2005: "Thus, the breeding concept allows optimal use of fertile ore and development of sustainable nuclear energy production for several thousand years into the future."


 * "Different sustainable nuclear reactor concepts are studied in the international forum 'generation IV'. Different types of coolant (Na, Pb and He) are studied for fast breeder reactors based on the Uranium cycle. The thermal Thorium cycle requires the use of a liquid fuel, which can be reprocessed online in order to extract the neutron poisons. This paper presents these different sustainable reactors, based on the Uranium or Thorium fuel cycles and will compare the different options in term of fissile inventory, capacity to be deployed, induced radiotoxicities, and R&D efforts."
 * See also this book. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Notice how the book mentions scarcity and then goes in scenarios about possible replacements and such. Anyway the current article states that some think it is sustainable (thorium reactor), and i think that is perfectly fine. Everything else should go into the related articles, rather improve those, instead to implement undue weight as proposed here. If there are a few brief additions to this article i guess nobody would mind, but the entire evolution of nuclear energy in light of sustainability depends a lot on R&D, and future assumptions -- all which means its a big If in the end. prokaryotes (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're taking one sentence from the introduction out of context. The whole book is about breeder reactors (mostly not about thorium) and it specifically and repeatedly says that they are sustainable and feasible. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

To the IP editor: At first I thought you may have wanted to give too much weight to specific technologies. It's clear to me now that you don't; I support due weight being given to all technologies and I think you do too. I did say a lot about what I called pet ideas, by which I meant people placing undue focus on technologies they are involved with, as a sort of conflict of interest. I don't think this is happening in the article now; I just wanted to caution against it. Nothing I said about specific technologies had to do with anyone's edits to the article; they were hypothetical cases, and I could've made that clearer. Overall, what I was trying to say is that specific technologies need to be presented fairly, with due weight, and with objective discussion of pros and cons. I may have said that in a way that was too colored by personal experience.

I don't know where to find evidence about the connection between the environmental movement and the nuclear disarmament movement in the 1960s and 1970s. Earth Day and (more so) Project Survival hint at it. I'm confident that there was such a connection. Both arise from a belief that humanity could destroy itself if it continues along the same path, either by nuclear war or environmental catastrophe.

I did wish to reply but I do not want to take the RfC off topic, so it's probably best not to discuss this further here. Perhaps some progress can be made if those who opposed the inclusion of nuclear technologies discussed how they think the article should present nuclear issues. This article has to say something about the future of nuclear power; it's got to comment on all the major sources of energy in current use. Posting with sustainable, impact-free hydroelectricity, Roches (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Roches I appreciate the clarification of your position! We could of course continue our tangental debate on your talk page, let me know. To get back on point, there is no such thing as "impact-free" energy despite what the salesmen try to have you beleive. As the Intergovernmental panel on climate change(IPCC) & the EU's ExternE studies on the externality of energy have exhaustively determined. In fact the "impact-free" hydro power you bring up actually might have a greater impact on global warming than even coal due the global albedo/reflectivity changes flooding massive amounts of land hydropower often requires*. In my proposed edit earlier, as the IP who tried to bring this article up to a scholarly level, I specifically link to both of these studies for the very reason that people of prokaryotes mind would no doubt argue that they personally think such-and-such energy source pollutes too much & therefore can't be "sustainable".


 * Here's the IPCC's 2014 information, well referenced in table form found in Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources. Please note the *max value of "2200" grams of carbon dioxide equivalent emitted per unit of energy for hydro, this is higher than even the max for coal of around "1000" grams! In general though the median values presented should be taken as having far more weight, not the max values, as those max values are determined from specific outlier studies on hydro-sites, such as those that flood nearly white sandy areas with darker colored water, thus increasing the net heat absorption of the earth. However it is something to keep in mind when you hear about "green" hydro projects. Not all are created equally.


 * prokaryotes the IPCC and researchers from Yale University have done extensive analyses of the hundreds of total life cycle assessment reports on the carbon dioxide emissions of conventional nuclear energy. They have determined that it emits about the same amount of carbon dioxide as wind energy. As they too require powertools, concrete & steel to construct and dismantle etc. Obviously.


 * This discussion thus convinces me that this article must also include a discussion on the IPCC's findings. Found in the article Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources. A summary of this information should not perhaps be within the nuclear energy sub-section as I had initially enplaced it, but definitely within the article somewhere near the top. Any objections to that? As all these details about "emissions" were covered in the environmental impact section of my contested edit.


 * Secondly, prokaryotes, in relation to this argument of yours - "nuclear energy in light of sustainability depends a lot on R&D, and future assumptions -- all which means its a big If in the end". I am sorry but that is not correct. As already referenced above, a number of reactors have already demonstrated themselves as sustainable sources of energy. Do you not remember us discussing the Phénix reactor? You seem to be constantly mischaracterizing the subject of our debate, if this article was titled akin to "economically competitive(with fossil fuels)sustainable energy sources", then you might be onto something! However the point has already been made that as it stands now, this article presently dedicates massive amounts of text to the following uncompetitive sustainable energy sources: Solar, biofuels, tidal power and sources of energy that have yet to even power a light bulb like "artificial photosynthesis". Which stands in pretty strong contrast to the Phénix reactor that, as I've already linked to above, demonstrated a sustainable fuel cycle & pumped out 24.4 TW.h of electricity during its lifetime according to the IAEA. So your whole "If" argument is rather disingenuous. Especially since the lack of urgency to commercialize breeder reactors is because, as this paper points out, there is so much uranium for the Once Through Fuel cycle as-is, there isn't much of an incentive to recycle it all(yet).Sustainability Features of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options.


 * Again, in case you didn't see them the first time, here is the relatively new, but still slightly outdated(2008) book | sustainable energy...authored by the chief of the British Department of Energy & Climate Change(DECC) org which details how certain nuclear technologies, specifically breeders, are not only sustainable but that they are the only source of energy analyzed in the book that could actually sustainably power a growing world entirely free from fossil fuels. While, as detailed in the book, the renewable "alternative" would be to massively industrialize rural areas with energy gathering devices that have to cover orders of magnitude greater land per unit of energy gained(units are m^2/W) which is hardly wise nor sustainable. Moreover here is a 2012 paper that appeared in a journal that was raised earlier, it again corroborates Cohen's 1970-80s paper. Sustainability 2012, 4(11), 3088-3123; doi:10.3390/su4113088 Article Sustainable, Full-Scope Nuclear Fission Energy at Planetary Scale, Robert Petroski and Lowell Wood Not that any of these "new" references are all that vital, as Sammy1339 put it, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead. & indeed closer to home Could nuclear fission energy, etc., solve the greenhouse problem? The affirmative case. Barry W. Brook(of bravenewclimate(dot)com) doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.041


 * Sammy1339 Thank you for your professional comments and reference additions to this discussion. A reference to that Kessler book and the Nucl. Phys. paper most certainly should be in this article!
 * 92.251.153.186 (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * IP 92.251 ... please consider a user name, maybe then i could remember discussing with you the Phenix reactor? And secondly above is just to much info, it's getting to complex. You want to mention sustainability of reactors, okay, and the article states that. If you want to add to this go ahead. However, use sources which can be considered not to close involved with opinions on energy sources, but which relay on studies and facts. Single book author opinions must be judged on a case per case basis. I now will read your new section. prokaryotes (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It is spelled Phénix, not "phenix", this is not nit-picking, but to help you find were we discussed her already. Secondly, as I don't intend to stick around wikipedia for long & as I'm the only IP editor ever to contribute to this discussion, it shouldn't be that hard to keep track of me the IP user from Ireland.
 * 92.251.153.186 (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, as you like. Though are you going to add something to the article from your suggestions, or are you waiting for others to add something you mentioned above? I suggest you add a brief mention of your main points maybe 2-3 sentences under the Thorium section, which might be renamed to nuclear power. Further i suspect people will add info on potentially problems (see France and shut down of reactors during heat waves etc). prokaryotes (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * France had to curtail its nuclear electricity output momentarily due to a heat wave over a decade ago. The station operators had to do this to prevent them from going over the regulatory limits set on how hot the river water that some stations use to cool the steam cycle heat exchangers could get. France is pretty much alone in this respect as most thermal power stations use either seawater cooling or cooling towers that don't have the same regulatory issue. In sum, what you are proposing is not even a nuclear fission issue. It just smacks of an editor having serious misunderstandings to bring that up on an article related to sustainable energy. Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station operates in the Arizona desert, for example, it is in a state of constant "heat wave" there.
 * 92.251.153.186 (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You missed my point, which is in regards to your proposed additions. To understand my suggestions you can read the section content about concerns. Additional please read WP:FORUM, and I notice that you do not respond to my questions above. I think I am now done here with my input. prokaryotes (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * One more thing, if you want to discuss nuclear power generation and things like heat waves, fee free to start a new section on my talk page. Also notice that a quick google search brings up infos about nuclear power plants and heat waves, including the one you linked above, discussed by credible scientists. prokaryotes (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I say kill this RFC. It is a small storm in a large teacup. The real problem is not the item in question, but that the whole article is incoherent and technically lightweight to the point of being misleading. If all that were fixed up this RFC would leave quietly by a side door. Much of the article is tendentious and more of it uses poorly defined concepts. If RL weren't riding me badly at the moment I might have had a go at more or less rewriting it, but I suspect that it is such a loaded topic that any major edit would lead more to wikiwars than improvements. JonRichfield (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, but then where would that leave us? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't see any proposed content or sources backing up the consensus statement to make any vote, and I'm not going to sort through the whole set of discussions here or above without some point of reference to address. What reviews in the peer-reviewed literature or reputable academic organizations are saying there is a consensus? WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS explain this pretty well for those that aren't familiar with what we consider reliable in scientific topics. I'd just close this RfC without a decision at this point. An RfC can't magically fix this without a properly addressed question. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Sustainable energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130512202430/http://www.bath.ac.uk/uk-shec/news/IEEE_Paper_6_3_5_finalx1x.pdf to http://www.bath.ac.uk/uk-shec/news/IEEE_Paper_6_3_5_finalx1x.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130512202430/http://www.bath.ac.uk/uk-shec/news/IEEE_Paper_6_3_5_finalx1x.pdf to http://www.bath.ac.uk/uk-shec/news/IEEE_Paper_6_3_5_finalx1x.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Sustainable energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091012052513/http://www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2006/renewable_factsheet.pdf to http://www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2006/renewable_factsheet.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070821112329/http://www.greenfuelonline.com:80/technology.htm to http://www.greenfuelonline.com/technology.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:11, 11 February 2016 (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 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear power

 * Sustainable Energy – without the hot air — 2008

I was just taking note of this book and came here, only to find myself shocked that nuclear power is not mentioned in the lead. You can make a weakish argument that fission is not sustainable.


 * thorium-based nuclear power

Thorium is three times as abundant as uranium and nearly as abundant as lead and gallium in the Earth's crust. The Thorium Energy Alliance estimates "there is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years."

I supposed the following text supplies justification:

Sustainable energy is energy that is consumed at insignificant rates compared to its supply and with manageable collateral effects, especially environmental effects.

Windmills and solar hardly require less extractive mining during the capital investment cycle (on the back of the present carbon industry we sort of take for granted).

So deep down, the criteria appears to be without adding any new ugly extractive industries over and above what we've already got.

Nor is it the case that solar and wind won't generate an enormous, problematic waste stream (the mechanical build for the power levels desired is simply enormous, and all of this is exposed to the harsh elements). But again, the criteria seems to be without adding any new problematic waste streams over and above what we're already used to.

My attitude toward nuclear has long been "show me the fuel cycle". The fuel cycles adopted at the beginning of the nuclear age were adopted primarily to dovetail with existing initiatives in the military–industrial complex (nuclear submarines, see Freeman Dyson) and gave effectively no deep consideration to civilian safety or sanity, beyond vaguely plausible PR.

I believe that our best design effort on modern technology (this has not change just a little bit since the 1940s) would improve the existing fuel cycles by one or two decimal orders of magnitude (even then, I'm not sure it will be good enough under a full accounting, but it certainly makes the question worth revisiting with an open mind).

And then there's fusion.

Nuclear fusion is unlike nuclear fission: fusion requires extremely precise and controlled temperature, pressure and magnetic field parameters for any net energy to be produced. If a reactor suffers damage or loses even a small degree of required control, fusion reactions and heat generation would rapidly cease.

Additionally, fusion reactors contain relatively small amounts of fuel, enough to "burn" for minutes, or in some cases, microseconds. Unless they are actively refueled, the reactions will quickly end.

Hydrogen is highly flammable, and in the case of a fire it is possible that the hydrogen stored on-site could be burned up and escape. In this case, the tritium contents of the hydrogen would be released into the atmosphere, posing a radiation risk. Calculations suggest that at about 1 kilogram (2.2 lb), the total amount of tritium and other radioactive gases in a typical power station would be so small that they would have diluted to legally acceptable limits by the time they blew as far as the station's perimeter fence.

The large flux of high-energy neutrons in a reactor will make the structural materials radioactive. The radioactive inventory at shut-down may be comparable to that of a fission reactor, but there are important differences.

The half-life of the radioisotopes produced by fusion tends to be less than those from fission, so that the inventory decreases more rapidly. Unlike fission reactors, whose waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, most of the radioactive material in a fusion reactor would be the reactor core itself, which would be dangerous for about 50 years, and low-level waste for another 100. Although this waste will be considerably more radioactive during those 50 years than fission waste, the very short half-life makes the process very attractive, as the waste management is fairly straightforward. By 500 years the material would have the same radioactivity as coal ash.

In general terms, fusion reactors would create far less radioactive material than a fission reactor, the material it would create is less damaging biologically, and the radioactivity "burns off" within a time period that is well within existing engineering capabilities for safe long-term waste storage. ''[ed: Don't blame me. I got it from Wikipedia.]''

That's an awful lot of "could be"s in this assessment, and devil is always in the details with these things. But I wouldn't presently stamp it as intrinsically unsustainable.

Which brings us back to politics: there are probably many people in the environmental movement who think that the present economic reality does not justify chasing after the clean fusion chimera, when all that talent and effort could be directed renewable technologies, supplemented with some prudent energy-use growth-rate belt-tightening. (Clap clap, new world order with actual adults in charge, job done.)

Which makes this article about a particular sustainable energy scenario (the bird in hand coupled with a green philosophy of economic moderation) rather than sustainable energy in the large.

When I get around to reading MacKay, the main question in mind will be this: what energy cost did he assign to the problem of maintaining enough geopolitical stability to keep nuclear energy from causing more problems than it solves? If geopolitical stability is left off the balance sheet, no narrow calculation can be fully trusted, even by a bright guy like MacKay.

So the "manageability" of any technology is tied the economic cost of maintaining a compatible world order and we have now entered the domain of wicked problems.

For my money, we should point this out, rather than sweep it under the environmental consensus rug. &mdash; MaxEnt 21:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I get the impression that you're hoping this article be factual and reasonable, however it is created by editor consensus which is often idealistically green and emotional. I agree that any form of energy production has a level of adverse effects, where is the cutoff line?? Dougmcdonell (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Sustainable energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iea-shc.org/task25/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100911045543/http://www.nellis.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123079933 to http://www.nellis.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123079933
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.solarsystems.com.au/projects.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lvbusinesspress.com/articles/2007/03/05/news/iq_12851348.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926230948/http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=44896 to http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=44896
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060212025744/http://www.bio.org/ind/biofuel/CellulosicEthanolIssueBrief.pdf to http://bio.org/ind/biofuel/CellulosicEthanolIssueBrief.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/2007/12/18/nanosolar-ships-first-panels
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304030520/http://www.districtenergy.org/assets/pdfs/2011Annual_Conf/Proceedings/A24WONG-v03.pdf to http://www.districtenergy.org/assets/pdfs/2011Annual_Conf/Proceedings/A24WONG-v03.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140422075645/http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/index.htm to http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004113944/http://ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/USDA_DOE_biofuels_letter_61208.pdf to http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/USDA_DOE_biofuels_letter_61208.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120125101249/http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/40742.pdf to http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/40742.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120510101628/http://energy.sandia.gov/index.php?page_id=405 to http://energy.sandia.gov/index.php?page_id=405

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sustainable energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012192534/http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=39442 to http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=39442
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150902091230/http://www.terra-genpower.com/News/Terra-Gen-Power-Announces-Closing-of-%24650-Million-.aspx to http://www.terra-genpower.com/News/Terra-Gen-Power-Announces-Closing-of-$650-Million-.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141203135336/http://www.torium.se/res/Documents/9_1kang.pdf to http://www.torium.se/res/Documents/9_1kang.pdf
 * Added tag to http://sunsat.gridlab.ohio.edu/
 * Added tag to http://sunsat.gridlab.ohio.edu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Are alternative energy sources really sustainable?
It is important that this article be correct and complete.

From a scientific point of view, it has been clear since the 1970s or before that the wholesale burning of fossil fuels is unsustainable. Besides the obvious issue of the finiteness of this energy supply, science has discovered several enormous resulting problems, especially global warming. Global warming sounds simple when expressed as an average increase of temperature, but that fact expands into a changing range of higher temperatures depending on place and time. We are currently seeing record-breaking hurricaines and the beginnings of giant glacier calvings, all stemming from much higher and more variable local temperatures and moisture-loading of the lower atmosphere. Coastlines and whole countries are going to be threatened by flooding caused by local seas having levels much higher than the global average.

We long ago passed the failsafe point where feasible solutions would have solved global warming. It may be too late to avoid massive environmental changes and destruction.

Denial of these important facts (whether through distaste or politics) is bad enough. We must also ask whether alternative energy sources are really sustainable. Nature's balance on Earth was established over millions of years, before humans were on the scene. We need to ask whether ocean wave power can really produce useful energy to meet our needs without adversely affecting the orbits of Earth and Moon, and ask similar questions about geothermal power, wind power, and all the others. Each one may affect the rotation of the earth, its orbit, its gravitational relationship to the Moon, and other vital aspects of our superbly balanced environment.

Without considering the long-term impact of each alternative energy source, this article cannot be considered complete, no matter how uncomfortable the truth may make us feel.

We are also not the first civilization to be threatened by ignoring issues. The Roman Empire probably also avoided many similarly vital discussions prior to their weakening and destruction (focusing on who was Emperor when or on the greed of local despots doesn't satisfy as a principal reason for the decline of this largely successful civilization). David Spector (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * So WP:FIXIT! Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Really, just FIXIT. If you look you will see that people have started to add content about the sustainability of the various sustainability options. What you are writing is no big revelation.  Just use high quality sources and avoid content that is WP:CRYSTALBALL and it should be fine. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have started a Controversy section and I invite other editors to expand it. Roberttherambler (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * About this; 1) bad source; 2) we generally don't do "controversy" sections per CRIT; and criticism of environmental effects of biomass is already discussed at Sustainable_energy. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * some additional sources added to the bad one here. Same other issues. Moved to Green electricity in the United Kingdom which is summarized here at Sustainable_energy. Please keep in mind that this article mostly summarizes its many daughter articles.  See WP:SUMMARY and WP:SYNC. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "SOFIXIT" when you repeatedly remove sourced content, added by multiple editors? You do not own this article.
 * Why did you move content about timber felling for fuel in the USA to an article about the UK, under an invented and bizarre heading of "Worsening greenhouse gas emissions", when that is not the issue at question. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You and I don't interact well so it is not a good thing to see you show up here. If you have any authentic questions, please ask them; I won't address rhetorical ones. Jytdog (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Then feel free to simply go away. It is not all about you. Yet again you are taking another invented content dispute with an editor and turning it into another round of Jytdog's superhero wikicrimefighting show. You are not Batman. It is not all about you. Before long you will (inevitably so - we've all seen your behaviour before) move this to ANI with a variety of wild accusations, then probably create Sockpuppet investigations/Roberttherambler, because harassment by fatuous SPI is another of your favourites. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * He has. See Sockpuppet investigations/Biscuittin. Roberttherambler (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't appreciate this off-topic attack on User:Jytdog when I am making what I believe to be an important and seldom-recognized point about this article. If you have references about this user to back up your criticisms, add them and move your diatribe to the proper place. Otherwise, please delete the diatribe as off-topic. Thanks. David Spector (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing me with User:Andy Dingley. Roberttherambler (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Pinging Roberttherambler, as i'm not sure if he is watching this page. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Roberttherambler (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I did indeed make that confusion; please accept my apology. David Spector (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * To David Spector, I have returned to this article to see it has once again having been reverted and here in the talk page, you David Spector are raising an issue that was previously communicated in the article, yet editors with a particular axe to grind/POVs have once again removed it. A look at the archive of this talk page will also reveal that this very content issue was discussed before...and then mysteriously, the information is vanished once again. It really is disheartening to see my and other editors hard work, where we seem to have come to a consensus, to come back and see this article back to the state that it is in,and to again, find people such as yourself finding it pushing a POV and here we go again, the whole cycle wash-and-repeat. The editors continually pushing their POV without any criticism being permitted, need to be stopped and I therefore suggest some sort of permanent remedy needs to be found for this, to which I'll leave other editors to think of solutions.


 * However I am also feeling a sense of enlightenment due to the comments made by User:Andy Dingley in reference to the editor User:Jytdog. As it seems like I have been at the receiving end of this latter editor's apparent Modus Operandi while on wikipedia, in relation to being topic banned in the most bizarre and wild manner. A spurious ban that most curiously followed my adding of the 2017 Cochrane review, to the article Premature rupture of membranes. An edit of mine that indisputedly remains, yet directly afterward I received a ban for the entire topic and anything that might relate to it. The MO of this editor, that Andy Dingley just illuminated for me, one that I wasn't aware of seems to consist of - "...invented content dispute with an editor and turning it into another round of Jytdog's superhero wikicrimefighting show. You are not Batman. It is not all about you. Before long you will (inevitably so - we've all seen your behaviour before) move this to ANI with a variety of wild accusations"


 * Thank you for illuminating and elucidating that Andy Dingley. I intend to have this ban instigated by them that was built on a series of wild accusations and half-truths, overturned.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Boundarylayer, that is a very interesting insight about an editor. Unfortunately, few people will see your comment, buried here in one article. It would be better for you to bring up the issue in the proper forum here at WP. The voluteers who participate in the administration of WP are very concerned with issues like this one and will do something appropriate about it.

As to sustainable energy, I'm afraid not much thinking goes on about this issue. For example, many believe that using hydrogen as a fuel in cars (as opposed to its indirect use in fuel cells) would be a dandy solution to particulate pollution by cars, and indeed it may. But in addition to analyzing the efficiency of burning hydrogen in cars it is also necessary to analyze how the hydrogen would be manufactured, to be sure that the added pollution at the generation location would be enough below that of car pollution to make the scheme feasible. David Spector (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you may be correct, that I should bring this up on a proper forum soon and begin having, at the very least, this issue getting put to discussed, with one thing that will make for change, is that I actually will be notified, available to respond and present to defend myself, in the ANI forum, this time around. Though at the present minute, I'm attempting to tie- up and finish another editorial matter, and I'm getting ready for the holiday season so don't think I want the grief coming up to that, nor the grief or times out it may cause for the admins, but I'm definitely not letting it get past me. Especially when it seems that it is their and their kins MO.


 * As for sustainable energy, I completely agree David Spector, the article is near to useless. Such as not even containing any mention to who, first coined the phrase, bit of a glaring omission, isn't it? The encyclopedia article on sustainable energy, doesn't even tell you who invented the phrase? While I'd make a guess it was the same folks that coined the phrase "sustainable development", the author of the WCECD report in 1987, the very fact that this information isn't even being presented in the article, should make everyone realize just how un-desiring of a factual arming of readers, this article has become, with the editors who have had their additions remain over the years, reflect the bulk of the content to continue that really does nothing but put readers in a infantile state, of pretending to be an informative article. Ultimately the article needs to arm readers with information and to also communicate the estimates on the vital issue of timespan, as the word "sustainable" is just a slogan without (1)a timescale being communicated, (2) how high this energy method could scale to meet world needs and (3) the externality cost of the present system and the likely physical constraints of resources it will bump up against, if it is scaled to meet world needs. I remember trying to start this work on this article a few years back, but you know the usual reverts & pretending to go along with the consensus and now years later, the material is essentially all gone, apart from that section I added on air pollution from burning wood. That's about the only thing that has remained.


 * As to elucidate some of the real world problems that have occured when the phrase "sustainable" is just banded about, with absolutely none of these 1-3 numbers being tagged onto it, with instead it just thrown around as a nebulous slogan and some of the likely problems that we'll face if it is set to continue to just be banded about as a label - Here's an example. At present rates of consumption, coal usage is frequently estimated to be suitable for ~300 years, but now as usage is dropping, it may be suitable/"sustainable" for even longer as less and less of it is used. Now, does that mean Coal is or will be a "sustainable energy" source in the future? We'd all say, I'd hope, never and no to that question, but concerningly, according to the article and some of the curious definitions, such as the following. The answer to that question may be yes, something that I think we can all agree is problematic. When some coal lobby starts calling coal not only "clean" but soon also "sustainable". According to this definition: Any energy generation, efficiency and conservation source where: Resources are available to enable massive scaling to become a significant portion of energy generation, long term, preferably 100 years. So...that includes coal then? We really need to do something about this, as it's only a matter of time until some spin-doctor starts calling coal sustainable, in part, because usage is dropping. They got there with the re-branding, to "clean" and the coal industry isn't the only one playing this sloganeering game. The article is pretty much chock-full of all the industries at this hood-winking game of "clean" & "sustainable". When frequently, (1) the timescales between all these "sustainable" resources have massive, orders of magnitude differences, yet that isn't communicated very often, the "sustainable" is just used to shut down debate (2) they can't be scaled to meet more than a few percent of world needs and (3) they have devastating externality costs.


 * A look at the talk page archive has the likes of myself and others discussing this matter at length before. Including, how coppicing is a fairly sustainable and minimal impact practice in star contrast to how "sustainable" is completely chopping down trees in the amazon and Borneo rainforests to support the biomass and palm oil plantation industry? If the rate of deforestation is some number X but the replenishment rate is less than X, then you don't have sustainable energy, you clearly have the very opposite going on. The most environmentally devastating means of producing energy, involved in wiping out the most ecologically rich areas of diversity, is getting branded "sustainable". That fact, just really makes a joke out of the entire concept, revealing it to be nothing but a fad, a slogan, a logo. Ireland is the most deforested country in Europe. So I really don't like seeing un-informative sloganeering sentiments that "biomass is sustainable", as in truth the net result on the ground is 9 times out of 10, a loss of biodiversity. A look at the Social and environmental impact of palm oil/for "biodiesel" should be all one needs to be aware of, to see the kind of "progress" that is being made under this fuzzy-cloak of "sustainable", "renewable" & "clean" energy and all the other nebulous euphemisms & slogans you can think of that have distracted and confused the wider public into acceptance.




 * Now I'm not here to bash the bio-industries, coppicing & Second-generation biofuels derived solely from existing agricultural and farm waste have a case for being "sustainable", though the slash-and-burn plantation approach that the EU/Germany is tacitly supporting? The literal gulf of distinction between the two forms, the two methods of bio-energy, is not mentioned in our "sustainable" article. It's all just thrown under the convenient slogan, of "sustainable" full stop. Therefore its a slogan we are continuously enslaved to, when we don't communicate the 1-3 data points I suggest above. Which would show just how literally worlds-apart they really are, in terms of sustainability.


 * The inherent concern we both have on this topic and that you speak of, was summarized for readers years ago as best as possible but of course now instead now article is back to blanket paragraphs that essentially have the sentiment that bioenergy and biofuels are super great, "it's sustainable", we're back to sloganeering. One other curious thing I've noticed is the article is now "inclusive" of article headings with the following flavor "Clean energy investment". When, exactly who decides what is defined as "clean energy", how are readers to know what is being discussed here? With no one but, unsurprisingly, any industry who uses the label "clean energy" benefiting from these misleading wikipedia headings, it is a major cause of concern. Especially when the coal industry say they only use "clean coal" now, they've seen how effective the PR spin with these slogans has been, so is jumping on the bandwagon so some young readers may understandably get misled on this giantly nebulous entry here in our article titled "Clean energy investment". I hope you can appreciate? As the entry doesn't demarcate what is defined as "clean", so does that mean, all biomass too?


 * The simlar issues applies for Cadmium telluride photovoltaics, which require the mining of rare resource ores that really are very similar to the likes of fossil fuels and may "run out" soon. Communicating to readers, conscientiously, that solar energy has the potential to be sustainable but a number of forms of "solar energy", such as this common one, really are not sustainable. Another important distinction, that really should be made, is once again instead totally lost in this article at present. It goes completely un-mentioned.


 * The Hydrogren-fuel-combustion-economy, that you bring up, while probably resulting in a net lowering of the city-level air pollution problem and the deaths associated with it, the H2-combustion-economy is however also subject to unsustainable processes as alongside being thermodynamically inefficient in the extreme, the elephant in the room for the past 30+ years is that hydrogen is almost always derived and dependent on fossil gas reforming, dependent on fossil fuel processes, so it isn't "sustainable". On the other hand, the Icelandic geothermal system, have a relatively sustainable system to produce hydrogen, "Carbon Recycling International(CRI)", but after that, no other countries really do. However one small caveat with the Icelandic "recycling" system is that they bring up appreciably more CO2 from the ground than would naturally diffuse its way up had they not drilled a bunch of holes into the ground for the facility, So not to detract from this pioneering-Icelandic-chemical-engineeing-work, with this environmental issue, as it is obviously an order of magnitude lower than the contribution from the fossil gas approach, there is nonetheless, still a bit of a misleading "recycling" claim in the company name, that should be mentioned with the appropriate level of weight and care. Regardless of how "sustainable" it is by a narrow definition. As it dumps a net amount of carbon dioxide into the air, while it produces power to recycle some of the carbon dioxide. The slogan therefore, is a little disingenuous itself. If under the unlikely event that the governments of the world recognized that carbon dioxide emissions needed to be stopped tomorrow, CRI would obviously be fairly far down at the bottom of the list of activities that need to cease, but the externality cost is still there, so we still need to communicate it. To link to the consensus Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources(LCA reports).


 * So the likes of the 1-3 data points, as discussed above alongside the LCA figures, or some other proposed alternatives, will help to inform and educate readers, to these externality issues and keep them from being hood-winked by sloganeering, whilst also helping readers get a grasp of the fundamental physical constraints of exactly what is "sustainable energy" in the real world, rather than seem to be cheerleading for one energy technology over another. Just because someone finds a load of references using the words "sustainable" alongside it.


 * Efforts should be made to communicate how (A)"sustainable" and (B)"clean" are largely just marketing terms, that have and seemingly are set to continue to result in certain companies receiving a pass on their environmentally degarding activities. Due to the halo effect of being decreed "sustainable". The reality is, with the sole exception of conventional hydroelectric power, (A)every other energy source requires more natural resources per unit of energy that they generate in comparison and sustaining the present rate of expansion of these alternatives, would in a number of cases like solar PV, not exactly be anything approachig a trivial task in terms of extra mining that would need to take place. Things really are also far less straight-forward than the manufactured "clean energy"/unclean energy" dichotomy, when every form of energy is on the "unclean" scale, every one has an externality scale. In this regard, we need to toss out that uninformative and unscientific nonsense about "clean" energy and simply provide a list that ranks energy sources by their externality cost, because nothing is truly "clean".


 * The EU funded a massive multi-university study on the exact externality cost of every form of energy generation presently available, so something like it, or an even wider-net study is the type of data we need to tag onto every energy source here. As otherwide, the uninformative phrase "sustainable energy" is just something that will continue to be abused. https://www.ecocouncil.dk/en/documents/praesentationer/931-111111-jubilaeum-msa
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI for those who didn't know, Jytdog has left Wikipedia. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 17:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

David Spector and Boundarylayer make some excellent and useful criticisms of the article. That's one of the main things a Talk page is for. For articles with issues that are deeper than a need for copyediting, taking the time to articulate the problems can be important. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 18:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
I broadly agree with Boundarylayer above. Reading this article makes me feel like I just came home from an industry conference in which I picked up a brochure from every huckster in the exhibition hall, and I'm now sitting down reading the entire stack of brochures. This article should, after defining its terminology, discuss various energy sources and neutrally explain their claims to being sustainable, giving due weight to their environmental and social benefits and drawbacks. We should be sourcing this content largely to independent reliable sources - not product advertising, not investor pitches, and not grant applications. Having an article read like a series of advertisements is not only against Wikipedia policy, it also feeds the belief that "sustainability" is just flimsy hype.

I will write more about other issues in this article later. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 18:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Overall purpose and focus of the article
I've done some thinking about how the reader would come to this article and what they might want to get out of it. Some relevant facts:
 * This article receives 4,663 page views per day, which is a lot. It's about 50% more page views than our Renewable energy article.|Alternative_energy|Renewable_energy
 * Clean energy currently redirects to this article, but the article does not attempt to define the term. Green energy also redirects to this article.
 * Google search numbers give a rough indication of the popularity of the terms "clean energy", "green energy", and "sustainable energy". With quotes, "clean energy" gets 20.7 billion results, "green energy" gets 24.7 billion, and "sustainable energy" gets 12.6 billion. This does not necessarily mean that it's wrong to redirect the "clean" and "green" terms here, but it means a lot of people who come to this article want to know what clean energy and green energy are about.

The concepts of "sustainable energy", "clean energy", and "green energy" are all fairly nebulous and difficult to define, but also very important concepts to neutrally explore. I would really like to see this article focus on 1) definitions of these terms, 2) discussion of the degree to which various energy sources are sustainable/clean/green, and 3) summary of the trends in sustainable/clean/green energy adoption. No other article on Wikipedia does these things. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 18:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)