User:Anantvis/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Article Name : Renewable energy in the united states

1) Everything in the article ( as indicated on the contents section, as well as implicit information ) are pertinent to the article topic

2) Some of the claims ( as mentioned in the talks ) are sourced from Dubious/ biased sources . The dates of the claims are not mentioned ( leading to a confusion ) and the source's credibility is being questioned in the article talks page . Claim : The state of California producing 31% of their energy from renewable sources.

3)As of now, there are no external link failures in the article , they have been properly linked.

4) According to me, the emphasis on the hydroelectricity is not as much as should be ( Considering weightage on the basis of each source's present contribution to the energy needs ).

5) The positioning of some of the images, graphs, charts could be improved as there is no space constraint.

6) The article presently doesn't meet good article criteria at the moment.

7) The article is of interest to the following wiki projects : 8) There are various talks going on regarding the credibility of few sources, the overall organisation of the article , the depth of description in few of the sub-headings , the language structure used and some technical failures of the external links.
 * WikiProject Energy ( Rated B Class, High Importance )
 * WikiProject Environment ( Rated B Class, Mid Importance )
 * WikiProject United States ( Rated B Class, High Importance )

9) Some of the citations / References / sources seem outdated and should be rectified if new data is available.

Plausible Wiki Articles for editing/contributing

 * 1) Renewable energy for the united states : Although the article is in progress, lots of additions and editing can be done .The talks among various editors make it quite discerning that some important additions are still missing.
 * 2) Wind Power in the United States : The talk section and the history section of the article clearly shows the minuscule amount of editions and discussions regarding the article .Separate section for "environmental regulations" creates an opportunity to contribute to this article with regard to the course structure . Although as renewables are indirectly linked to the Environment, many additions can be linked to the environmental impacts of the same.
 * 3) Energy Development:There's a lot of scope for improvement of this article as most of the changes are related to modification of the external links . No datas in the article have been questioned so far, no sources' credibility has been questioned . No suggestions on inclusion of topics, headings etc have been made. I see a huge potential to add to this article in the future.

Finalising the Article / Finding your sources
The article that i have finalised is Wind Power in the United States

I am in the process of cross checking the sources used by editors in the section : Environmental regulations

There's not much content in that section and i intend to add as much relevant information pertinent to the regulations/policies as i could.

Useful Resources :


 * https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/67624.pdf
 * https://www.awea.org/MakingittotheTop
 * https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/wv_chapter2_wind_power_in_the_united_states.pdf
 * http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7286288
 * https://www.energy.gov/science-innovation/energy-sources/renewable-energy/wind
 * https://www.eia.gov/renewable/data.php

Suggested Additions to the selected Article
Some of the additions under the section " Environmental Regulations " of the pertinent article Wind Power in the United States

I plan on adding the following information in the coming days to the wiki article :


 * The harassment of any marine mammal species in U.S waters is a violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 ( 50 CFR 18 ) . Offshore wind developers are required to apply for a letter of Authorisation or Incidental Harassment Authorisation with all the pertinent details of the species under potential threats from it’s off shore activities, the mitigation measures, and monitoring and reporting Obligations.
 * An off shore wind project must also be in accordance with all the regulatory obligations of the Federally approved- State costal management plan, under the Costal zone Management Act of 1972, to keep in check the affect on the costal resources due to such off-shore wind projects.
 * A Dredge and fill permit is required, by an Off-shore Wind project proponent, from the U.S Army Corps of Engineers for handling of the Dredging material from or into the U.S. waters and also for laying of any transmission lines in-shore or off-shore.
 * Use of Emergency generators at the wind project site and vessels are required a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency . Some of the pre-existing information in the sub section has been presented in a biased way, and i am still working to make sure that what i feel about them is correct , only after being 80-90%sure , i will start a talk regarding that information.

"In 2013, the Obama administration was accused of having a double standard to protect the wind industry from Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prosecutions, while vigorously pursuing violations by oil companies and owners of power lines. The administration refused to divulge the number of raptor deaths reported to it by wind companies, saying that to do so would reveal trade secrets. The government also ordered federal law enforcement field agents not to pursue bird-death prosecutions against wind companies without prior approval from Washington. The policy was said to be an environmental trade-off to promote renewable energy"

This above paragraph seems to be inclined towards Anti-Obama administration, with words like "vigorously", "refused to divulge" etc. Also the source is 'Associated Press' and it's credibility is not too convincing to me __NEWSECTIONLINK__

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS( Draft with a few changes )
The US federal government has jurisdiction to prevent bird and bat deaths by wind turbines, under the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Under the 2009 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Interior Department could issue permits to allow "non-purposeful take" for activities where eagle deaths were considered unavoidable; however, as of December 2013, no take permits had been issued to wind energy developers.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has published voluntary guidelines for design and siting of wind turbines to minimise bird and bat deaths. Interim guidelines were published in 2003, and the latest version in 2012. The document recognises that even the best management practices may not prevent wind turbine bird deaths in violation of federal law, but stated: “However, if a violation occurs the Service will consider a developer’s documented efforts to communicate with the Service and adhere to the Guidelines.”

In 2013, the Obama administration was accused of having a double standard to protect the wind industry from Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prosecutions, while vigorously pursuing violations by oil companies and owners of power lines. The administration refused to divulge the number of raptor deaths reported to it by wind companies, saying that to do so would reveal trade secrets. The government also ordered federal law enforcement field agents not to pursue bird-death prosecutions against wind companies without prior approval from Washington. The policy was said to be an environmental trade-off to promote renewable energy.

In November 2013, the federal government obtained its first criminal conviction of a wind power operator for killing protected birds in violation of the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Duke Energy plead guilty, and was fined $1 million, for the deaths of 160 birds, including 14 golden eagles, at two wind farms in Wyoming. The Justice Department charged that Duke had designed and sited the turbines knowing that they would kill birds; Duke noted that it had self-reported the bird deaths, and that US Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines for reducing bird deaths by wind turbines had not been issued when the turbines were built. After they were charged, Duke implemented a radar detection system, at a cost of $600,000 per year, designed to turn off turbines when approached by large birds; the company noted that the system was working, as no golden eagle deaths had been observed in more than a year of operation since the radar was installed.

In December 2013 the US Fish and Wildlife Service announced that it would issue 30-year permits to wind energy projects to allow for eagle deaths; previously, permits had been available for only 5 years, but none were issued to wind projects. Under the 30-year permits, wind power developers would be required to report eagle deaths, and the permits would be reviewed every 5 years. The measure was intended to remove what was seen as legal uncertainty discouraging wind energy investments. The government said that an environmental review was not needed for the change, because it was only an administrative change.The new regulation was welcomed by the American Wind Energy Association, which said that wind power caused less than two percent of human-caused eagle fatalities, and pointed out that the rules would require extensive mitigation and monitoring of eagle deaths. The extension of eagle taking permits from 5 to 30 years was opposed by a number of conservation groups, including the American Bird Conservancy, the Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, and the Humane Society of the United States.

'''The harassment of any marine mammal species in U.S waters is a violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 ( 50 CFR 18 ). Offshore wind developers are required to apply for a letter of Authorisation or Incidental Harassment Authorisation with all the pertinent details of the species under potential threats from it’s off shore activities, the mitigation measures, and monitoring and reporting Obligations. An off shore wind project must also be in accordance with all the regulatory obligations of the Federally approved- State costal management plan, under the Costal zone Management Act of 1972, to keep in check the affect on the costal resources due to such off-shore wind projects. '''

'''A Dredge and fill permit is required, by an Off-shore Wind project proponent, from the U.S Army Corps of Engineers for handling of the Dredging material from or into the U.S. waters and also for laying of any transmission lines in-shore or off-shore. Use of Emergency generators at the wind project site and vessels are required a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency. Some of the pre-existing information in the sub section has been presented in a biased way, and i am still working to make sure that what i feel about them is correct , only after being 80-90%sure , i will start a talk regarding that information. '''

'''More than 30,000 turbine locations are really close to the federally protected bird habitats, out of which almost 24,000 lie in the migratory corridor of the whooping crane and almost 3000 in the breeding grounds of the endangered Greater Sage- Grouse. '''

'''As per the director of the American Bird Conservancy's Bird Smart Wind Energy Campaign, Dr Michael Hutchins, wind turbines present a real threat to the Nation's birds. He also addressed that how ineffective the present voluntary permitting guidelines and the requirement of mandatory permitting guidelines for the same. Tom Vinson, the American Wind Energy Association vice president for regulatory affairs stated the ambiguity in estimation and extrapolation of various datas and also questioned the credibility of the assumptions of Agencies like ABC while making claims of future bird deaths. '''

'''Rising concerns about the bird deaths prompted ABC, in collaboration with 70 other conservation organisations, to lobby the federal Government by Pressurising the U.S. Department of Interior to develop a National Programmatic Wind Environmental Impact Statement which would identify appropriate areas for wind energy development, as well as areas where development should be avoided, but these lobbying efforts failed. '''