Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy development/Archive1

Name
Rename this to simply "Energy Development" Tom - Talk 18:10, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * That or perhaps "Sustainability and Energy Development" --[[User:Ctrl_buildtalk 15px|]] 21:22, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Wow! You outdid me there!  Great name.  I second the motion.  Tom - Talk 16:34, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Check the new talk category below, we need to get people on this page --[[User:Ctrl_buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]]]] 16:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Big objection to "Sustainability and Energy Development", with your permission. The whole energy nexus, of great importance in the sustainability wars, is in fact but one sub-set of the hard push to sustainable development (and social justice). Calling it "Sustainable Energy Development" or even "Sustainable Energy" would help you to avoid this trap. I can amplify this if needed, but hopefully this will do it? ericbritton 16:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Review board
Check out the review board page at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy Related Development by Civilizations/Review Board I need help in design of the page. I am working on the election process now. All the the page is in there as a template, we really don't have Tom Hanks at our disposal. --User:Ctrl_buildtalk 16:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * This project may some day mature into something with elections etc., but for the time being it is just two people. Not enough to support much action at all.  Getting a successful and vibrant project is a work of art.  Probably would be wise to start small until there are enough participants to form needs and consensuses about structures and forms.  Tom - Talk


 * I agree, but I am just putting the structure in place for discussion of processes. Anyway after 5 people come onboard, maybe we can decide on the name, but I like sustainability and... --[[User:Ctrl_buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]]]] 17:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just trying to get my signature to work -- 17:50, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) I want this: User:Ctrl_buildtalk I get this:  Any suggestions?

Never mind, I fixed it --Ctrl buildtalk 17:53, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where do I sign up?
Hya, I'd be interested in helping with this project. Though I've very little Wikiing experience, I have read a lot on peak oil and other energy sources and have been looking for some way I could help raise awareness and increase discussion on the subject. --Jwanders 19:38, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Trying to organize
I just discovered WikiProject Ecology. Sigh. I think we need to talk about a merge or a clear distinction. I still think Sustainability is a better name, but I could easily be swayed to a reasonable better solution. Should we merge this project with Ecology? Tom Haws 22:54, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * No. ecology is a science, and energy development is a technological field.  And sustainability means far more than energy sources - it focuses on energy conservation and localization, not "new supply", though that's part of it, the overall strategy is to drastically reduce need for fuels.

Moving material on Alternatives to oil to Future energy development
We are running a poll to try to get a better idea of community sense on this idea. At the same time, we can discuss it here, with our concise opinions up front. Tom Haws 06:22, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

It is proposed that the Alternatives to oil section of Hubbert Peak be largely moved to Future energy development.
 * You have to prove that content in Hubbert peak is actually not directly related there, just voting proves nothing. From my vantage point 95% of the content currently in Hubbert peak belongs there.  The content was duplicated long ago between these two articles precisely because they approach the issue from two very different angles, we should continue this dual approach.  What about the idea of creating an Alternatives to oil article, eventually?  It makes more sense to remove the allegedly duplicative content from Future energy development, should that be an option? zen master    T  06:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * "Voting proves nothing." You are right.  Try not to think of our little polls as votes.  We are merely trying to find out where other people (besides those we already know) stand.  It is Wikipedia policy that polls are not binding.  We run on consensus.  "An Alternatives to oil article".  This seems to violate my sense of what is encyclopedic.  Such an article as Alternatives to oil seems a bit "topical" and "dated" for an encyclopedia.  It's fine for a serious magazine or journal, but just doesn't have that certain editorial flourish for an encyclopedia.  How would it strike you if we had articles like Alternatives to chariots, Alternatives to racism, Alternatives to rail travel, Alternatives to the interstate system.  It is porblematic for the title to suggest that the article is presenting a solution to a problem; that's not encyclopedic in the sense we try to reach.  To avoid this kind of problem as well as NPOV problems, we need to come up with titles that imply a phenomenon we can describe.  For example Alternative fuels could describe the quest to develop alt fuels, Hubbert Peak should discuss what has been thought and said about Hubbert's Peak theory.  Does that make sense? Tom Haws 06:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * See my comments in the project page, I clarified my thoughts a bit. I don't think it makes sense to vote until we determine/someone describes what they consider to be non-relevant in the Hubbert peak article,  because if it's only a little bit of content then there is no need to vote.  If it's the entire alternatives to oil section then there's a big potential for controversy.  I think the voluntary simplicity movement takes up way too much space in the hubbert peak article currently, each section should be an brief overview of the relevant alternative technology or implication, the alternatives to oil section in hubbert peak is not meant to replace each individual alternative energy sources' article.  To repeat, alterantives to oil inside hubbert peak is just a detailed summary, it's large because the subject matter is large.  I am not keen on the title alternatives to oil but it makes more sense than future energy development.  We can do better.  If we merge future energy development back into energy development there will no longer be a need to move anything from hubbert peak? zen master    T  06:59, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Good thoughts. I agree that a few words are needed about why many peripheral issues are affected by the implications of Hubbert Peak.  As long as we keep disciplining ourselves to move any developing information from the Hubbert Peak to the more appropriate articles.  Let me read the articles in question so I can have a more accurate opinion about the specific section in question.  Tom Haws 07:28, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, this is wrong. There are many reasons to seek alternatives to oil, and Hubbert peak is not even the most pressing:  climate change is the most pressing.  The existing reserves of oil can't be burned in the existing stock of engines and furnaces without destroying the climate of this planet.  So the Hubbert peak argument is irrelevant given the climate change constraint, though, clean-burning engines that sequestered CO2 might address climate change while still being subject to the Hubbert argument, that is speculation.  Such engines don't exist.  Those solutions that produce less combustion also require new engine or furnace development.


 * Thinking about this some more, I want to withdraw my objection to the idea of an article on "Future Energy Development." It is not my favorite title, but it is probably better than "Alternatives to oil."  As to Hubbert Peak, I do think we need to retain this, but how about a separate, and broader, article on "Peak oil." Sunray 08:09, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)


 * No, the Hubbert peak IS the peak oil argument, and the redirects show this nicely.


 * I have serious doubts that the decline in Oil has that much to do with this huy Hubbert - suggesting that he invented the theory that if you suck from the straw long enough, eventually you will heard a loud sucking noise is in my opinion buying into a self-engrandisment scheme. Hubbert wrote a book suggesting that the well will run dry at some future point. Let me propose this, that for a religion - its fine to believe in something BEFORE it happens, but for an encyclopedia, it ought to be required that we wait to see well the facts co-incide with the prophet before we name a grade-school geological phenomena after a living person. Benjamin Gatti

Polls
Please limit comments to one line, and discuss on the project talk page if necessary.

Alternatives to oil material in Hubbert Peak
It is proposed that the Alternatives to oil section of Hubbert Peak be largely moved to Future energy development.


 * Support Tom Haws 05:41, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Opposed zen master   T  06:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Ultramarine 07:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Jwanders 07:42, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Opposed, though I would support moving it to Energy development. Sunray 01:23, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * Opposed, I agree with Sunray's position. I agree with the others that the Hubbert Peak page is too cluttered. Quasarstrider 22:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Summary after 5 weeks: 3 of 6 support the proposal. 5 of 6 support moving the material. I'll open a followup.

On failure to find consensus for the above, it is proposed that the Alternatives to oil section of Hubbert Peak be largely moved to Energy development.


 * Support. This would have been my preferred option to begin with. Tom Haws 23:08, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we need an Alternatives to oil or Alternatives fuels article? The alternatives to oil section in hubbert peak is meant to be a synopsis that summarizes all alternatives, it's not meant to be the definitive area  where all info about all alternatives is put, so even if content is "moved" most of the current synopsis in hubbert peak should remain as it's highly relevant there.  Though I agree there is room for verbosity clean up. zen master    T  04:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There already are Fuel and Non-conventional oil pages. Quasarstrider 16:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Future energy development article
It is proposed that Future energy development be merged into Energy development


 * Weak Support. I'm okay either way. Tom Haws 05:41, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Support As long as hubbert peak content is not pilfered I don't care as long as whatever happens makes logical sense and is consistent. zen master    T  06:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Opposed Energy development is also current and historical energy development. It seems better to have a separate article about the future energy development. Ultramarine 07:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Opposed Jwanders 07:42, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support "Energy development" implies the future. "Energy use" or "energy consumption" deals with the past and present. Sunray 09:00, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
 * Support Once again I share the same opinion as Sunray. Quasarstrider 22:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - the articles overlap a lot already and unless it's a history, 'development' is for 'future' uses of that energy. The articles need tightening up; some additioanl facts and references would be useful. --Wtshymanski 16:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support I absolutely agree with Sunray. The very title Future energy development makes no sense. We, as wikipedians cannot write about future events, whatever or whenever we wish they may occur. darkside2010 13:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote Comments
The issues currently undergoing voting are mis-framed. Before you can vote the phrase "not direclty necessary to the discussion of Hubbert peak" needs to be defined precisely, because that is where there will be controversy even after a vote. From my vantage point 95% of the content currently in Hubbert peak belongs there. The content was duplicated from hubbert peak long ago precisely because these two article approach the issue from two very different angles, we should continue this dual approach. What about the idea of creating an Alternatives to oil article, eventually? It makes more sense to remove the allegedly duplicative content from Future energy development, shouldn't that be an option? zen master   T  06:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure. Add that as a poll question.  Note I tried to reword and improve the question above.  See if you can do better before we get other responses. Tom Haws 07:14, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think the discussion should be of the fact that some alternatives of oil are from past use (whale materials, coal, natural gas), and some are not yet developed or not yet in widespread use (biomass, solar, fusion). Given this, one can right a whole article on either the history of fuels, direct it to the fuel article (Fuel) or even, write an article History of Oil Usage, and split it into historical usage and past usage. I believe this will allow Hubbert Peak to return to what it should be, an article explaing, Hubbert peak, not the history of oil usage. --Ctrl buildtalk 21:40, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Future energy development?
A search by Google shows the following number of hits:
 * Energy development (152,000)
 * Future energy development (602)

Since the article on Energy development is already long enough, I like Zen-master's suggestion that we create an article on "Alternatives to oil." Sunray 03:20, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)


 * There should be one article in Wikipedia that briefly discusses all energy development in the future. The name can be argued and changed. For example, the current material in "Energy development" can be moved to a new article like "Energy production today" if "Energy development" should only refer to the future. However, "Alternatives to oil" or "Alternatives to fossil fuels" do not present a broad overview.


 * Also, the Hubbert Peak article now has some other material not relevant to its name. "Hubbert Peak" refers to a very specific mathematical curve, the Hubbert curve, and the peak may well follow a different pattern. The implications would be similar for a different curve. A better name for the article would be "Peak oil", "Future oil and gas production" or something similar. Ultramarine 12:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I like "Peak oil" as it is more often used than "Hubbert Peak" and likely more easily understood by the lay reader. Sunray 16:36, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Alternatives to Oil is too narrow.  I don't know about changing the Hubbert Peak name, though.  The colloquial "Peak Oil" is grammatically a very sloppy term.  The Hubbert web site calls it "Hubbert Peak of Oil Production".  By the way, shouldn't we move this to talk? Tom Haws 21:33, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Tom Haws 21:33, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, please do. It would be interesting to know what the contributors to "Energy development" think about moving the current material to some new article if "Energy development" should only deal with the future? Ultramarine 22:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I basically agree with I have heard here. "Peak Oil" despite sloppy is short and recognizable by anyone familiar with the subject. "Energy development" should concern developing or future energy. "Alternatives to fossil fuels" may not be worthwhile. I think "Non-conventional oil" deflates a lot of the interest in it. IMO it should be "Petroleum", "Peak oil", "Non-conventional oil", "Energy production" and "Energy development". Alternatively we could rename the last two to "Energy reserves" and "Energy resources". Quasarstrider 22:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Energy development seems to be the prefered term according to both Google and Google Scholar. I think that "Energy production" may be a good term to describe de facto existing current or past technology. "Energy development" may describe more speculative technology that may or may not came into production. This still means that there has been a historical energy development in technology. Compare with economic development. One can speak of past and future economic development.


 * So how about moving de facto existing energy technology from Energy development to Energy production? And move Future energy development to Energy development in order to reflect current usage? And maybe have an article named Past energy development for the history of development of energy technology? Ultramarine 18:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No. A fellow who wants to put a wind farm on your ranch is an energy developer.  A fellow who wants to put hydro dams on the Yangtze is an energy developer.  Energy development is the field of increasing the amount of usable/exploitable energy to humans.  The field, both historic and speculative, is energy development.  At least, that is my understanding.  Tom Haws 19:21, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * But then one can talk of both historical and future energy development? Ultramarine 19:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure. That makes sense.   Tom Haws 20:54, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Peak oil currently redirects to Hubbert peak. At worst it should be the other way around, and best, the articles should be split. Consensus? Ec5618 05:25, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * A fellow who wants to put a wind farm on your ranch is a developer sure, and his business is energy, but he is not an energy developer, and is not actively involved in energy development. I think the article energy development should be moved to energy production and future energy development should be moved to energy development. The energy sources that humanity will use in the future are being developed today!


 * I guess it depends on how you look at it. To some of us, everything is in development until it is built out, phased out, or used up.  Oil energy is still being developed, including new technologies in all facets of the exploitation process. Tom Haws 16:38, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I actually agree. I've found this arrangement odd for a while now. There's nothing (as it were) wrong with the articles, but they need to be named better. future energy development is a silly name. We shouldn't look at this from the wind farm developer's perspective, but from a technical viewpoint. - Ec5618 17:46, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * One can certainly talk about the past and future economic development for a counctry. However, usually one only says economic development" which should be understood as the economic development right now.


 * I see some problems with moving the content to "Energy development". Where should the current content there go? The articles are too long to be combined and in addition there will be future expansion. And what is the correct name for the history of development of energy technology if "energy development" for some reason only can be used for future technology? Ultramarine 18:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That essentially is my position, Ultramarine. Tom Haws 20:03, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Renaming Hubbert peak to Peak oil
Hopefully this something we can agree on. Is anyone against this? Ultramarine 18:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Clarification. The whole article can be dismissed by arguing that oil depletion can have a different form than the Hubbert curve. Peak oil is a better title since it allows for many different curves. Hubbert peak could redirect to Peak oil. Ultramarine 19:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * But the Hubbert peak article already clarifies (or it did at one point) that the rate of depletion need not be bell shaped (in fact, we are better off if it's not [depletion spread out more slowly over time]), you don't think that is enough? I think that's enough, the theory doesn't absolutely require that the rate of production be bell shaped (the implication is that the bell shaped curve happens when humans try to use oil as fast as possible [unchecked expansion]), and we caveat all over the article why global oil production hasn't been bell shaped.  Conversely, the non-FSU, non-OPEC production image is rather bell shaped... zen master    T  19:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The question, as far as I'm concerned, is "Did Hubbert restrict his theory to a special curve, or was it a general theory of rough peaking characteristics?" This article should answer that, and if his theory was about a special curve, then I can see UM's point. Tom Haws 20:01, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * From what I can see from the article, Hubbert stated that the peak should follow his curve. Furthermore, his theory is actually already falsified since he predicted a peak before 2000. So right now we have a long article about a falsified theory. Ultramarine 23:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Your conclusions are entirely illogical. At best you can say Hubbert never considered politics as a factor that would disrupt global oil production (the article basically states this, perhaps we should clarify?).  Peak prediction is based on past plus estimated future production data input into the model, the model is fundamentally sound, the data is not. Even Campbell has been wrong a few times, but a much larger consensus is forming around the 2007 date.  zen master    T  23:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Hubbert's theory is falsified. The peak oil modell is not. Campbell is not advocating Hubbert's theory, but a similar theory. Ultramarine 00:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Explain how Hubbert's theory is "falsified" exactly? That seems like a very poor word choice for you Ultramarine. What are the differences between Hubbert's and Campbell's theories? This article doesn't get into mathematical details so really the article is about the concept of Hubbert peak or peak oil, so how can it be wrong in the way you describe? I suppose we can add the mathemtatical details if someone is knowledge able enough but that is likely not relevant and prone to errors? Would it make sense to add info on errant bell shaped thinking on Hubbert's part to the Hubbert curve article (did Hubbert assume humans would try to extract oil as fast as possible globally?). How do you explain non-FSU, non-OPEC production following a bell shaped curve exactly (one way of looking at that graph is that it eliminates geopolitical disruptions from global oil production, another way of looking at that graph is that the FSU and OPEC were/are wise enough to slow the rate of production down so they'd have their oil longer and have their oil after the point at which the petro dollar collapses). zen master   T  00:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Hubbert predicted a peak before 2000. This did not happen. His theory was wrong. Ultramarine 00:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Completely valid prediction based on future production estimates and historical production data he had at the time. Remember it's a "prediction", it's not fool proof, it's only as good as the data input into the model.  His "prediction" was wrong (because of errant data), not his "theory". zen master    T  00:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * His theory was wrong. Campbell has a similar theory, not the same. Ultramarine 00:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * What are the differences? Are you (surprisingly) arguing Campbell's theory is 100% correct?  As a side note/question: one concept of the Hubbert peak theory is that there will be a peak, that isn't wrong is it? Another concept of Hubbert peak theory is that the 50% of oil left after the peak will have a much smaller energy return on energy invested than the first 50%, that isn't wrong is it?  7 years difference isn't that much considering all the variables of global oil production, demand, and geopolitical disruptions (including war), do you disagree? zen master    T  00:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. But again, he was wrong regarding the date. His theory is falsified. This is how science works. Theory, prediction, falsification. Campbell has a different theory. Hubbert peak refer to a peak that should have occured before 2000. Ultramarine 00:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree, Hubbert peak theory is more than just a prediction date. And I can't analyze or judge your claim that it is "falsified" if you don't even describe the differences between it and a theory you apparently believe is 100% correct.  We should consider the possibility Saudi Arabia's largest oil fields are intentionally being over produced (so the peak was technically in the past, this will only make the rate of depletion all the more steep on the other side).  Increased drilling technology/efficiency which makes previously unrecoverable resources recoverable (deep water, hubbert likely didn't include those sources), and increased fuel efficiency etc all have to have had some affect on the accuracy of the prediction date.  Using your logic I could state that Hubbert theory is "totally proven" because Hubbert accurately predicted the peak date for US-48 oil production. zen master    T  01:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No, Hubbert's theory about US oil productin was supported by what happened. Hubbert's theory that peak oil should be before 2000 is absolutely proven false. Again, you are arguing for a theory similar to Hubbert's theory. Again, this how science works. Theory, prediction, falsification. Hubbert's theory was falsified. There are other Peak oil theories that are not falsified, Campbell has one that is similar but not the same as Hubbert's. If it was Hubbert's theory, Campbell would predict a peak before 2000. Ultramarine 01:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe you are missing the essence of Hubbert peak theory. "supported by what happened" sounds like circular logic to me.  If you are going to mention Science you should actually be refering to scientific facts to support your claims, what are the differences between Campbell and Hubbert theory wise?  How is Hubbert peak theory wrong exaclty (the details, what lead Hubbert to the inaccurate date of 2000 and what makes Campbell's 2007 date correct)?  Hubbert, using Hubbert theory, accurately predicted that US-48 oil production would peak in 1970, the peak was indeed 1970, this is a fact, the article currently states this.  Are you disputing the current version of the article?  I also believe you are mischaracterizing "theory" to mean "prediction" which is a definition stretch/concept confusion which I reasonably conclude you intend to use for POV purposes.  zen master    T  01:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If I wanted to discredit peak oil, my interest would be best served by keeping the article in the current status. Many probably dismiss peak oil as a crank theory since is quite clear from the article that what Hubbert predicted did not happen. The peak oil theory would look much stronger if the article censored every mention of Hubbert and the numerous prior failed predictions of the peak and instead only mentioned Campbell's current prediction. A name change would make the peak oil theory look better, not worse as you seem to think. Ultramarine 01:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The article currently states Hubbert, in 1971?, used high and low estimate to get a range between 1995 and 2000, are you claiming it's impossible Hubbert's high range (estimated 30 years ago) wasn't high enough? His prediction was made prior to the disruptions of 1973, 1979, and the 80s (which have to have delayed the peak significantly)?  What are the differences between Hubbert's high estimate and what we know today about how much oil has been recovered?   Does this difference match the amount of oil produced from previously thought unrecoverable sources like deep water?  If we plug in real production data through today what date does Hubbert's model predict?  I bet it's the same as Campbells, 2007. I will assume Campbell and Hubbert's "models" are the same, but not the data used as the input for those models, until you provide evidence otherwise.  In fact, if you look at the www.peakoil.net oil prediction chart, and you exclude deep water, non-conventional oil and LNG, the peak really did happen around 2000! zen master    T  02:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't feel strongly about keeping Hubbert Peak, though I agree with Zenmnaster here. But I distinctly loathe Peak Oil as an ugly, cheap, and fadddish title. If we do change names, I propose something more grand like "The rise and fall of oil energy" "The reign of oil energy" "The oil dynasty".  All very fanciful.  How about "Energy from oil" or "Oil energy"? Tom Haws 02:04, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oil depletion or Conventional-oil depletion or even just Depletion could work, especially after the peak, but I believe Hubbert peak is the best title given our current content and distinctions. zen master   T  03:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * What about Peak oil production? I agree with Ultramarine that the title Hubbert peak is too narrow, and focusses on a specific peak in a specific model which predicts a date which has passed, and as yet the peak has not happened. I personally think that Peak oil would be a suitable title, but obviously Zen Master and Tom have very strong negative feelings about this title, though I can't understand why. darkside2010 04:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Because that argument has yet to use facts or logic. zen master   T  04:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Zen Master, are you a troll, or simply an idiot? You are the one who is lacking cogent arguments and logic. The case could not be clearer. "Hubbert peak" refers to a peak in oil production according to a particular mathematical model which predicted the peak would occur five to ten years ago. The peak has not yet happened. Therefore a more appropriate title for the article would be Peak oil, where the general ideas can be discussed, and the Hubbert theory be given its rightful place in the larger context of the peaking of world oil production. darkside2010 05:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are simply wrong "Darkside", you mischaracterize peak oil theory and myself. The prediction date is a function of the data input into the model, the model itself remains the same. At the time, all the way back in 1971, Hubbert's data was either too pessimistic about oil recovery or didn't consider non-conventional oil, deep water, and LNG sources. If you exclude those the peak did happen around 2000. checkout http://www.peakoil.net/ zen master   T  05:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Peak Oil is, first, generally considered a future event (as far as we know), relevant to the world's capacity to produce oil (the greatest production amount or peak production). We may not know for years after Peak Oil has occurred, at which time Peak Oil will be a past event. The term or period in which oil production begins a continuous decline may be a decade before Peak Oil becomes a past event. Peak Oil also refers to production capacity as it relates to any oil field or fields within a finite area, such as a country, like the United States or the lower 48 which was the area M. King Hubbert's famous prediction was first associated. I'm no tech theory wiz. But I've been reading about Peak Oil for six years or so. IMHO, today's Peak Oil is a world reference. Hubbert peak or Hubbert's Peak may be a reference to Peak Oil but it is no longer Peak Oil. Hubbert will always be associated with Peak Oil, as he should be. RickPilkington 01:00, 21 Apr 2005 (EST)

Peak Oil is not a theory after it occurs. The [lower 48] will never produce the "peak" amount of oil that has already been produced. That fact should surely be relevant to what is Peak Oil. RickPilkington 01:15, 21 Apr 2005 (EST)


 * Rick, I'm confused about what you are saying. You seem to be in favor of the idea of the article being called Peak oil, with appropriate reference, and credit given to Hubbert, but in the voting section below, you say "oppose" and then make comments which seem to indicate that you, in fact, support the motion, which was originally, that the Hubbert peak article should be renamed to Peak oil. Perhaps you did not read the whole debate above (I can't blame you), so I have put the proposal in brief in the section below, so that it is obvious what this "vote" is about. darkside2010 09:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am softening on my opposition to Peak oil. It is a very common term. How about Peak oil redirecting to Oil energy or Oil energy development? Isn't Peak oil simply about the idea of figuring out when oil use/production will peak? Tom Haws 17:00, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Voting
Should the article Hubbert peak be renamed/moved to Peak oil?
 * Oppose Sorry. Peak oil is simply not descriptive.  Is a redirect unsuitable? Tom Haws 18:55, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Peak oil already redirects to Hubbert peak. zen master   T  19:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support darkside2010 04:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose That's just wrong. Redirect Hubbert peak to Peak oil. RickPilkington 01:00, 21 Apr 2005 (EST)


 * Support in part. I renamed it "Dwindling oil reserves" in the link from Nuclear energy and that has survived intact without much objection. I strongly agree that Hubbert, while being the (presumably rich) author of a briefly popular book, falls into the category of prophets for who the future will better judge the accuracy of their predictions. Fawning on him PRIOR to the realization of his thesis by naming Phenomena (not just theories) after him discredits the Wikipedia. "Hubbert Peak" should be renamed "Hubbert's peak oil theory", and a serious article about oil and its known reserves should be started which states that facts, indicates that some people have made estimates of their meaning. Benjamin Gatti

Moving past polls to discussion page
I welcome all new participants. I note that this page has become cluttered with past polls. Is anyone against moving them to the discussion page? Ultramarine 18:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Energy equivalents
I worked out the following energy equivalents I thought might be useful. It might be good to include such in our project somewhere. Grid electricity ($0.08/kw-hr) is now clearly cheaper than gasoline ($2.5/gallon) for transportation. A fifth the cost (50 cents a gallon), I figure. Can you all please check my numbers? Tom Haws 16:12, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1 kw-hr=3412 BTU, 1 barrel crude oil=5,800,000 BTU, 1 gallon gasoline=124,000 BTU.
 * Internal combustion engine efficiency = 20% to 30%. Electric motor efficiency=80% to 90%.
 * Automobiles use the equivalent 1 gallon of gasoline (internal combustion)= 6 kw-hr (electric motor).

I though that the efficiency of storage for a battery was about 50%. Don't have a source at the moment, but whatever the number, it is probably significantly less than 100%. pstudier 19:19, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
 * Battery efficiency is somewhat greater than 50%, though not quite 100%. It's my understanding that PbA and Li are around 90% while NiMH are less, apparent by the heat they produce during discharge and charge. --D0li0 06:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're comparing the price of wholesale electricity to retail gasoline. Retail electricity is closer to $0.10 - $0.15 in the USA. In states like Hawaii and Massachusetts, it costs $0.20-$0.30/kWh. On a hot summer day when everyone has the A/C on, wholesale electricity can cost over $1.00/kWh.

I wish the comparison were as simple as you've made it out to be, but unfortunately it's not. The efficiency of IC engines varies widely depending of the type of engine, and how it's used. In general terms, a large Diesel engine can be up to 50% efficient. An Otto cycle (common gasoline type) engine is roughly 20% efficient I would guess (a bit less than your estimate). A modified Atkinson cycle (used in many hybrid cars) is similar to the Otto, except it uses a different valve timing profile to effectively "lengthen" the expansion stroke (or "shorten" the compression stroke, depending on how you look at it). I'd guess the efficiency falls within the range you mentioned, 20%-30%

More importantly, the efficiency depends on the usage profile and the needs of the application. You see, all of those efficiency numbers are calculated when the engine is running at high-power output, when it is naturally more "efficient". At low-power output, IC engines are always much less efficient. In automotive applications, the engine is sized to meet the peak-power needs, but most of the time the power requirements of the vehicle are only a small percentage of the engines peak-power capability. For example, consider that when an engine is idling, it's not producing any useful work, but it's still consuming gas, so it's efficiency is 0%.

Adding hybrid technology to cars and trucks increases the efficiency of the vehicle 10-60%; not because it makes IC engines more efficient, but because it uses the synergy of IC engines and electric systems to get the best of both worlds. The electric system provides some of the peak power needs (when accelerating), thus the car can use a smaller engine than normal. Then when the vehicle is cruising, the engine puts out more energy than normal to charge the batteries. The hybrid design has the effect of  the load on the engine. As a result, the (smaller) engine spends more of it's time producing power at a greater percentage of it's maximum power output, thus it is more efficient. In a hybrid, the size of the engine can be more efficiently matched to the car's power usage.

Other features of a hybrid improve efficiency aka "mileage". For example, regenerative breaking recycles the cars kinetic energy instead of wasting it by heating the breaks. Also, when the car is stopped, the engine is shut-off, not idled.

Mikiemike 18:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC) --

Are Hybrid Vehicles Economical?
I just saw an artical in the April 2006 "Consumer Reports" claiming that the fuel savings from hybrid vehicles don't pay for the extra costs, even at US$3-4/gallon! This suprized me, and I was sadened to see it, but I don't doubt it's true. When you add up the total costs for the electrical equipment (batteries, motor, etc.), the extra loan interest, depreciation, insurance, and maintenance costs, the total costs are more than the savings in fuel and tax credits. The honda civic hybrid and the Prius were the most economical, but even with these vehicles the lifetime cost was several thousands dollars more than a similar non-hybrid vehicle. I expect that before hybrids can break-even in costs, gas prices will have to go up over US$5/gallon, the price/performance of hybrid technology will have to improve, and the tax laws will have to be more favorable; however, all these things are likely to happen.

Mikiemike 20:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Charting a direction for the project
I sense in recent polls a nascent desire for an improved project organization in the area of the reign of oil. There is a widely held desire to present an article or series on oil's place in energy development, and a feeling that an article on Hubbert's Peak is just not grand enough for the subject in question. Rather than another evil poll, perhaps we should discuss this a bit and try to come to some consensus on a bold move that will give us a commendable treatment of the "Rise and Fall of Oil Energy". There are several clues that this project has a much bigger potential. I suggest we start throwing out ideas for growing the project. Tom Haws 16:12, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hubbert Peak is bursting at the seams. Need a discussion of The Oil Regime.
 * Energy development has turned (courtesy of an anon) into a discussion of various means of supplying the Electrical Grid.
 * The History of energy development that had been progressing at Energy development is gone.
 * We need a genre of articles for the rise and fall of various energy exploitation schemes. I don't know what they would be called, but I feel getting the name right will help avoid entropy.  Ideas I can think of include Energy from oil/Energy from photovoltaics, Oil energy/Photovoltaic energy, Oil energy development/Photovoltaic energy development, Oil energy history and outlook/Photovoltaic energy history and outlook.
 * We need a genre of articles about various energy distribution and use schemes/technologies: Energy development and the electric grid/Energy development and the internal combustion engine, Electric grid as an energy delivery scheme/Internal combustion engine as an energy delivery scheme.


 * Looking over the progress list you have outlined, above, I note the following:
 * The Hubbert Peak article has far outstripped the Wikipedia guidelines regarding length for a well-written article on a given subject. I would suggest that we drastically pare down the section on "Implications of a world peak" (placing some of it in a separate article) and then create another new article for "Alternatives to oil," again with a tight summary in the Hubbert Peak article.
 * As to the Energy development article, I can see what you mean about the changes. It is frustrating to have someone summarily turf something you have worked on.  On the positive side:  There are improvements in readability&mdash;always a good thing IMO.  We can add back material that seems necessary.
 * The remainder of your proposals sound good, though it is too much for me to contemplate right now. Let's establish a framework for these articles so that we can all work on them as time permits.  Meanwhile, I can work on the Hubbert Peak and Energy Development articles along the lines I have described above.  Sunray 15:15, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you think the energy development article should be used as a "template" for the larger scope of this project, or just another article? --Ctrl buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]] 21:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Some news
I feel like I'm talking in an empty room. Hello? Hello? Is anybody there? I found an article I think is quite exciting. [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.07/solar.html The Dotcom King & the Rooftop Solar Revolution: Idealab impresario Bill Gross couldn't wait for the dawn of the sun age. So he built a high-energy, low-cost solar concentrator that will fit on your roof. And overthrow the powers that be.] Tom Haws 22:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Tom. Thank you for hanging in there.  It will pay off big in karma :-)  Thanks for the article and thanks for the initiative.  I will give you some comments on the latter within the next couple of days.  Sunray 05:50, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm back. Sorry about the multi-month disappearance. I am ready to help get this project really off the ground. There is so much structure that is unused, and so much energy information that is not even documented. --Ctrl buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]] 22:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I am here as well. I was mostly active in the hydrogen economy page, lately I have digressed somewhat to space technology pages like reusable launch system, but I would be willing to help reorganize pages and fill in blanks time permitting. The energy pages really need some better organization and perhaps templates. I also found the lack of tables mentioning the gravimetric and volumetric energy density of diverse fuel alternatives and other hard data somewhat dissapointing. Quasarstrider 23:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Energy
This inactive wikiproject seems related to yours. Do you want to adopt it or cannabilise it for parts? Hiding talk 18:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, its an earlier version of the page before it was renamed. I probably either should do redirects to this project or look into getting it deleted. Any ideas? --Ctrl buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]] 19:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've listed a few for deletion and they've gone through okay, so you could list this and if you state the reason it would get deleted. However, a redirect would prevent it getting created again, and is probably the better idea. Hiding  talk 19:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I feel like I am playing wikipedia telephone tag. I agree. When I feel up to it, it shall be done this week. --Ctrl buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]] 23:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Tangentially Related - Transclusion
It seems like this project could benefit from an improvement to transclusion I would like to propose (but don't know where).

Because we're mostly discussing meta-articles, or complex subjects such as "Sustainable energies" which invariably must touch on some 10 other specific form of enegies - I would propose a tranclusion modifier which allows only the section BEFORE the first subsection to be transcluded into a Meta-article. For example: look as Sustainable energy. It works, but its too much data. Providing sectional transclusion with a switch for the "Main Article Only" (with and without images) would do the trick nicely.

For example:

====

Would provide a susinct summary of the subject which links to the entire article without the problems of forking (at the performace costs of transclusion). Anyone want to support the notion? Benjamin Gatti

VOTE!! - HDI in country infobox/template?
The Human Development Index (HDI) is a standard UN measure/rank of how developed a country is or is not. It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment. However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.

Thus, the following question is put to a vote:

Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia country infobox/template:
 * (1) Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;
 * (2) Rank of country’s HDI;
 * (3) Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?

YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here

Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Quick question
Why is Wikipedia officially endorsing left-wing social projects? That's a great reason for me to stop contributing entirely, and tell others to stop and discount Wikipedia's info. Yeah, who cares about me, right? But once more people find out Wikipedia is just a way to funnel money into left-wing social projects.... *not signing with my Wikipedia user name* 24.243.190.239 00:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware that energy development was considered a left-wing topic. Ever since the Industrial Revolution, we've been looking for more and more sources of energy to advance our society and improve our quality of life. Many developments in energy today not only include ways to generate cheap energy but also to do it cleanly. Though the public tends to view environmentalists as leftists, the ablity to preserve our environment for future generations is a valid concern. A leftist ideology in energy development may advocate that sustainabilty is more important than cost-effectiveness, while a rightist ideology may advocate the opposite, but the discussion of energy development is non-partisan. If you disagree, you are welcome to remedy the supposed bias using the NPOV guidelines. Solarusdude 01:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey man, thanks for that link to the Industrial Revolution, I really didn't know what that was, but now: now I do.
 * If this was really about making sure we'd have energy and other resources in the future, and not about, I don't know, bashing capitalism based on bad economics, it would include stuff about futures markets, or speculation, (both of which ensure resource availability in the future) or the bet between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich (which by the way the pro-"sustainability" crowd lost miserably). I mean, it's not like those would be excluded because they cast doubt on the projects aims! 24.243.190.239 03:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * To 24.243.190.239, don't bitch, fix! I would welcome some input about free markets, etc. pstudier 04:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, you're perfectly welcome to fix anything that you see wrong here. I am just as concerned as you are about bias in these articles. In fact, I would really like to know which energy-related articles "bash capitalism on bad economics." I'll go ahead and change them myself if you tell me what they are. Solarusdude 18:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * All of them? Okay, sweeping claim, you probably don't believe me.  So I have this neat trick for you.  First, consider a futures contract.  This is one of the most fundamental, if not the most fundamental mechanisms within capitalism by which goods are intertemporally reallocated between periods so no one generation overuses them (because speculators detect this and bid up the current price).  No allegation of any resource running out (or even that the issue "merits concern") can consider itself remotely complete without a consideration of this very basic concept.
 * Now try this: look at the full list of proposed articles in this project. Then look at the full list of what links to the futures contract article. There is no overlap whatsoever.  Nothing proposed to be in this project, not even the articles mentioning economics links to it.  Think about that for a second.  Not one person who has ever contributed to this project has ever included an article that touches on futures contracts.  Not one person who has ever contributed to the articles suggested to be on this project has inserted a mention of futures contracts.  What this tells me is that this "non-ideological" project is severly flawed at the most fundamental level.  Actually, one article links to it: sustainable agriculture.  That was me, a few hours before I posted the original complaint here, posting from work.  You can verify from an IP trace that it came from the same city.
 * If this were an issue of 5%, or 10%, or even 50% of the articles being skewed, I would gladly contribute. But 100% are skewed.  There is no way I could possibly make a dent in it.  As it stands, the project is just a vehicle for left-wing pseudoscience scaremongering about resources running out.
 * And let me tell you why I care - because I've contributed around $1000 (in pieces) to Wikipedia. That was hard-earned money.  That's money I can now never redirect to worthy causes.  I thought my money was going to help form a NPOV repository of collected human knowledge and allow a much greater flow of information across the globe.  In reality, I was funding a bunch of socialist misinformation.  If I can't get them to give me a refund, I guarantee you, I will spend a lot more than that making sure no one regards Wikipedia as a neutral source of information anymore. 24.243.190.239 06:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how futures are relevant. I looked at energy futures, and the longest term contract is for delivery of light sweet crude on December 2011, see .  This is hardly an intergenerational timescale.  In any case, it is not economically feasible to store oil for delivery in six years.  The future markets are for price prediction and hedging, not actually allocating resources over time. pstudier 23:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's because all evidence we have indicates that oil will not run out for a long time. If we were using 10 units per year, and there were only 100 units proven to exist, futures for delivery in ten years, and 20 years would skyrocket and be worth bidding on, driving up the current price.  That you can only find delivery dates 6 years into the future is a sign that there is no problem, not that there is a problem and people are ignoring it.  Investors hear what the doom-and-gloom crowd has to say.  They're well aware of it.  If there were anything to it, you'd see longer delivery dates.  Nor are they just hedging games.  If there are contracts for long term future delivery, that affects planning now.
 * Imagine if I said, Americans consume 600,000 lbs of hot dogs per week. But the 4th of July (that's a big American holiday) is coming up, the week of which it is predicted that Americans will consume 2 million lbs of hot dogs.  What to do!  The 4th of July will roll around, and there won't be enough hot dogs!  Since there will be no hot dogs, people will have nothing to eat!  Since people will have nothing to eat, many will starve.  Since many will starve, there will be no one to run the infrastructre, and...
 * Hopefully you see why that's absurd. People know now there will be demand then.  This causes businesses to plan ahead.  Even if they don't plan ahead, consumers won't starve, they'll just eat different things.
 * Of course, this is all beside the point. The articles do betray ignorance of the very basic economics behind this.  Even if you totally deny that futures in any way affect long term energy availability (i.e., you deny 200 years of economics and assume you are smarter than every person who has ever invested in energy markets), that would not explain statements like in the sustainable agriculture article which, before my edit, claimed that using petroleum as an input makes farmers vulnerable to large fluctuations.  In fact, it does not, since they can simply buy futures.  If they don't, they're not just farmers, but also speculators, seeking a return on changes in the energy markets.  Ignorance like this seeps through every new "sustainability" article.  One person fixing it piece by piece won't help.  You need to go out and solicit to people on the economics, financial markets, and right-wing boards to contribute to the articles, not just hope they'll stumble upon it and correct the ignorant socialist scaremongering. 24.243.190.239 00:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I have nearly always voted Republican, so I don't think I am a left-winger, though I recently started occasionally listening to NPR :-). Is there any way I can help? (I started this WikiProject, I think).  Tom Haws 21:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Potential sustainable technologies project
I'm thinking of launching a sustainable technologies project and am hoping to get feedback and gauge interest. I've drafted a project page in my userspace; if you're interested, please check it out and comment on its talk page. Thanks! —Jwanders 19:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF
Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)