Talk:Renewable energy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
[edit] Biofuel/Bioenergy is economically impractical
Take corn (Maize) for example, one of the best converters of solar energy, excelled only by sugar cane. Corn converts only 0.7% of the available incident solar energy into bioenergy stored as starch -- calculated on an annual basis. Part of the reason is that the "grainfilling" period is only about 50 days. Some additional energy is stored as cellulose over a 170-day growing period. Both of these come at a staggering cost in water and petroleum-based fertilizers as well as a lot of farm labor.
This capability has to be compared to the capability of photovoltaics under the same circumstances. These convert 20 to 30 or more times energy than corn, while requiring no water or fertilizer. The higher cost of PVs (which is rapidly coming down) is partially offset by the reduced cost of the land required to place them -- sometimes, this land cost is a net zero or even negative. Thus, when located on the roof of a building, they can dramatically cut the roof component of cooling costs.
I have an authoritative reference for the corn numbers -- but I promised the source not to publicize his identity. If anyone wants this reference, they can ask for it individually under the same terms. Allenwoll 00:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, however, wind and geothermal is more affordable than PV. But either way, it doesn't help with powering the transportation sector unless plug-in hybrids are used, and ultimately electric vehicles. That will happen eventually, but it's not cheap, and automobile manufacturers will resist for as long as possible, every step of the way, partly because they don't want to make vehicles more expensive, and because the market for electric grid storage is underdeveloped, and so the extent to which this can offset the cost is currently limited. That too will change.
The most efficient photosynthesis is algae, which actually already produces oil efficiently. The oil produced is thousands of times more than any other crop. The technical development challenges are to develop methods to grow it in a controlled environment, and to break the cell wall to extract the oil, using clever techniques such as ultrasonics.
Another huge energy resource that is almost a perfect source, yet is vastly underestimated is solid biomass. It can replace the use of oil in some applications, such as space heating, and perhaps ocean transportation and rail transport, thus freeing up oil resources to be used for technically demanding applications like land and air transportation. Also all coal power plants should switch over to biomass fuel which costs about the same and is cleaner and carbon neutral. This would allow the use of petroleum from the oil sands in Alberta, Canada until a better solution is found to power the transportation sector.
Mikiemike (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)--
[edit] Solar, Nuclear, Geothermal etc
I noticed that Solar power satellites are listed as a solar technology. This seems like a far out technology to list here. This technology seems much too drawing board to me. Shouldn't something be at the prototype stage or close before it is listed as a renewable energy source. This goes over to the nuclear debate. If the fuel cycle was closed and all the transmutations and breeding chains were figured out there might be something to the argument that nuclear is renewable. But all those processes are paperwork at the moment. And if it's just a dream and some paperwork that makes a technology renewable there are lots of crazy ideas that can be put on this page.
It seems as though a simple qualifier for entry on the list of renewable technologies should be that the technology is past the dream stage and has at least reached the working prototype stage. It seems as though Space power belongs in a hypothetical sources of power category. Just a thought.
I was thinking this about Geothermal the other day. I was asking myself if geothermal is a derivative of solar energy too? The greenhouse effect warms the surface by 33°C. That's essentially a solar input. When you look at an average geothermal gradient of 25°C/km it looks as though ground source heating that is only a couple meters deep is using more energy coming from the sun than the core. Does that make sense? Has this been brought up? I'm curious.
There seems to be something wrong with The Renewable Energy Resource Base (Exajoules a year) graph. How can geothermal have a higher technical and theoretical potential than solar energy?
And finally. I've been working on the Solar Power page. I've asked that the name of the page be changed to Solar Energy. One of the reasons for this is that Solar Energy takes many forms such as light, heat and electricity. Hydro and wind only really make electricity so power is an appropriate designator. Geothermal can do heat or electricity so maybe that's why it's listed as geothermal energy on this page. I notice that solar energy is used on this page. Just wondering if there were any thoughts on changing the name of the Solar power topic to Solar energy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talk • contribs) 11:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
About the Solar Space Satellite. It's tagged as speculative on the Future energy development page. Probably because it not sourced but it's still very speculative. It belongs on a speculative page.
On the Geothermal (geology) it lists the heat flow from the interior of the earth to the surface as 1/20,000 as great as the energy received from the Sun. Below Smil quotes an even higher number.
Chapter 5 pg 163 of the source lists the technical potential of solar energy. The geothermal data comes later. I don't think the info is being properly quoted. I would recommend a better source. Here's a quotes from Smil:
"Renewable fluxes: magnitudes and complications. Insolation (at 122 PW) is the only renewable flux that is nearly 4 orders of magnitude greater than the world’s TPES of nearly 13 TW in the year 2005."
"Except for direct solar radiation and a cripplingly high harvest of planetary NPP, no other renewable energy resource can provide more than 10 TW: generous estimates of technically feasible maxima are less than 10 TW for wind, less than 5 TW for ocean waves, less than 2 TW for hydroelectricity and less than 1 TW for geothermal and tidal energy and for ocean currents. All of these estimates are maxima of uncertain import and actual economically and environmentally acceptable rates may be only small fractions of the technically feasible totals." Mrshaba 11:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- These estimates are very low for wind and geothermal in particular. The articles on wind power and geothermal power document much greater resources, for example. 199.125.109.73 04:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think the renewable energy resource potential table needs rework. The information comes from a good source but the comparisons appear asymmetrical. i.e. Data for Geothermal (GT) resource stocks seem to be compared to solar resource flows. Stocks should not be compared to flows. Point sources of energy are also compared to distributed sources of energy in a veiled way. At the very least the assumptions of technical potential need to be further explained. This is a complicated task to be sure. I'm not sure what assumptions the UN report makes to arrive at the GT stocks/flows but the authors of the UN report seem to have overstated the case for GT resources compared to solar resources. The geothermal energy article quotes the solar flux as 20000 times larger than the GT flux. This figure is roughly accurate all and all when the earth is considered as a system drawn around the upper atmosphere. The conflict between the GT energy article and the table in this article is large. Some sort of attempt to resolve this conflict should be made. I will write to the contact listed in the UN article as a first step. Are there any other suggestions for improving the resource numbers? Mrshaba 15:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Good point about stocks of energy. If something really is quoting the total amount of energy available versus available in a year then it should be taken out of the table ASAP. Not to mention that a total amount of energy available isn't consistent with the definition of a renewable source. Only an amount available per year is. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 19:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I cheked the source and the number for Theoretical potential Geothermal energy are the total amount of heat stored in the upper 5 km of the earths (land?) area. Acording to Orders_of_magnitude_(power) the flow are 44 TW or 44*365*24*3600 TJ= 1390 EJ. So it take about 100 000 years to transport the heat on avreage, if it is renewable are up to the defintin, its clear that on a global scale the current use are much less than the flow, but in the future the use may become larger than the usable flow and therfor not sustainable over long periods of time.Peter 79 (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Good point about stocks of energy. If something really is quoting the total amount of energy available versus available in a year then it should be taken out of the table ASAP. Not to mention that a total amount of energy available isn't consistent with the definition of a renewable source. Only an amount available per year is. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 19:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think the renewable energy resource potential table needs rework. The information comes from a good source but the comparisons appear asymmetrical. i.e. Data for Geothermal (GT) resource stocks seem to be compared to solar resource flows. Stocks should not be compared to flows. Point sources of energy are also compared to distributed sources of energy in a veiled way. At the very least the assumptions of technical potential need to be further explained. This is a complicated task to be sure. I'm not sure what assumptions the UN report makes to arrive at the GT stocks/flows but the authors of the UN report seem to have overstated the case for GT resources compared to solar resources. The geothermal energy article quotes the solar flux as 20000 times larger than the GT flux. This figure is roughly accurate all and all when the earth is considered as a system drawn around the upper atmosphere. The conflict between the GT energy article and the table in this article is large. Some sort of attempt to resolve this conflict should be made. I will write to the contact listed in the UN article as a first step. Are there any other suggestions for improving the resource numbers? Mrshaba 15:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] George W. Bush quote
Okay, George W. Bush publicly classifies nuclear power as a renewable energy source. Let me make a few things clear.
I don't care if you agree with him or not. I don't even care the reasons anyone has for doing so. The fact is that George Bush's opinion is more notable than your own. NOT including the quote is POV.
You may post quotes from other world leaders with sources. You may not delete the fact that he has consistently called it a renewable resource. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 05:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Someone who can't even pronounce nuclear is hardly an expert on whether it is renewable. He lied to the country to get Saddam's head, and he is lying about nuclear being renewable. As the Dixie Chicks said "we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas". He probably did know he was lying about Iraq. He probably doesn't know he is lying about nucular. He will forever be an embarrassment to the country, although I no longer think he has ever done anything, other than want Saddam's head. Everything else appears to be Rove, Cheney and company's doing. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Give George 2 points for pronouncing nuclear correctly and not calling it renewable in this years state of the union speech. But deduct ten points for calling nuclear non-polluting. 199.125.109.54 (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
George W. Bush is hardly an expert on this subject, also, his opinion is quite possibly highly biased which would make quoting him more POV than not quoting him. And it is rediculous to say just becuase somebody is more well known than somebody else it would be POV to not quote him, that's a stupid statement and nothing else it has no intelligent merit whatsoever it's just stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.52.203.217 (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Just one POV sentance on nuclear
This:
Neither nuclear fission nor nuclear fusion are generally regarded as forms of renewable energy.[1][2]
Is unacceptable and everyone who's editing the article knows it. The references DO NOT support the statement. The reality is that most reputable organizations avoid the issue of classifying nuclear as renewable or non-renewable to avoid the firestorm that would come with it. That's what those references show. You can just do a google search for the definition of the term and you will find a hundred mentions of fossil fuels, and a notable absence of nuclear power.
The last anon user undid my formatting of the references as well. Please redo them, as well as comment here. Thanks. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 03:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is an extreme minority point of view to even include nuclear in this article at all. You dig up Uranium to make nuclear power. Non-renewable. You make plutonium out of U238 to get more power out of the Uranium. Still non-renewable, and what is that other thing you can make so easily from Plutonium? Help me out I forget, oh wait I remember now... You collect deuterium and tritium to use nuclear fusion, which no one knows yet if it will be practical anyways. Non-renewable. Case closed. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- The article is already entertaining a POV that nuclear is renewable. It should contain one that it's not but it should not contain the sentence above, which is a poor use of sources and not good attribution. Stop arguing how you consider it one thing or the other. Nobody cares. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 04:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- One, not a half dozen. There is no need to write an essay on this subject. Fourteen words are plenty. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- The article is already entertaining a POV that nuclear is renewable. It should contain one that it's not but it should not contain the sentence above, which is a poor use of sources and not good attribution. Stop arguing how you consider it one thing or the other. Nobody cares. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 04:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Text 1
Neither nuclear fission nor nuclear fusion are generally regarded as forms of renewable energy.[3][4]
[edit] Text 2
Neither nuclear fission nor nuclear fusion are commonly listed among forms of renewable energy. The EIA and the NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory), for instance, don't include nuclear in their list of renewable energy sources. While both sites use fossil fuels to provide a counter example of renewable sources, both contain no mention of nuclear power.[5][6]
On the other side of the issue, many groups apart of the anti-nuclear movement have insisted that nuclear power not be considered a renewable resource.[7]
[edit] Text 3
However, whether these energy systems are commonly considered amongst forms of renewable energy for political purposes is a question seperate from whether they are actually "renewable", on a factual level.
No energy system is truly infinite - the hydrogen in the sun is equally as finite as the nuclear fusion and fission fuels on Earth. This is not to say that for the purposes of responsible planning on any time scale relevant to foreseeable generations of humanity, solar power will not continue to be available without significant change - it certainly will continue to be fully available for the foreseeable future - but the fact is, that man-made nuclear fission and fusion will also be fully available for generations into the foreseeable future.
There is no sensible, scientifically motivated, factual reason why nuclear fission and fusion energy systems cannot be considered a form of fully sustainable, "renewable energy" also.
These are all proposed for the nuclear section. I think text 2 should be used. The wording I think is fairly NPOV right now, but it could by all means be improved. I'm not sure how this is construed to be "too long". I would take 2 extra sentences over (text 1) POV and unsupported by references. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 02:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Come up with something shorter than text 1 and we can talk about it. Not longer. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- We don't barter to include POV. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 03:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- But seriously, until the section contains one attributed statement of it being called renewable and one of it being called non-renewable, the section will never be stable. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 03:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- It already includes one of each. Since you think the wording is fairly NPOV right now, just leave it. If you can shorten it I'm all ears. If you want to make it longer, I'm doubtful that it would be necessary. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, it shouldn't be kept at xx words, explanatory text is very necessary, and "text 1" above is intentionally misleading and deceptive. Do you see where I'm coming from yet? -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 21:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- It already includes one of each. Since you think the wording is fairly NPOV right now, just leave it. If you can shorten it I'm all ears. If you want to make it longer, I'm doubtful that it would be necessary. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I know that you are coming from a viewpoint of trying to promote nuclear power, is there anything else I need to know? All that needs to be said is that nuclear power is not renewable. It says generally considered because you and a very few others falsely consider it to be renewable, just like getting 3x4 wrong. Your getting it wrong doesn't mean we have to explain anything. The whole section is an extreme minority viewpoint. There is nothing deceptive or misleading about text 1. We have had you repeatedly try to write huge soliloquies about this subject, and they are not necessary. When three words suffice, don't use ten. When ten suffice don't use 20. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Do you need a link of anti-nuclear edits and articles I've done? I'm not promoting nuclear power, and I will WP:AGF in regards to all other editors - end of story. You must say in the article "xxx says does not classify nuclear as renewable", as opposed to saying "nuclear is not classified as renewable" which is equivalent to saying "The great Wikipedia declares nuclear is not renewable".
- Bottom line: mention in the article who calls it not renewable, as an example at the least. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 22:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly better. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 23:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Another page from the same site could have been used: Scientific Forms of Energy I don't see any firestorm of complaints, like would arise if they put it into the renewable category. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- While I agree that the latest version is an improvement over the sentence that started this discussion, Theanphibian's last version (diff) had the advantage of covering both sides of the debate in a unified paragraph. A tight paragraph like that might let us move the Cohen quote (which I think gives the pro-nuclear position undue prominence in the article) off to the references. -- Avenue (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's my favorite version. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 00:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- While I agree that the latest version is an improvement over the sentence that started this discussion, Theanphibian's last version (diff) had the advantage of covering both sides of the debate in a unified paragraph. A tight paragraph like that might let us move the Cohen quote (which I think gives the pro-nuclear position undue prominence in the article) off to the references. -- Avenue (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Another page from the same site could have been used: Scientific Forms of Energy I don't see any firestorm of complaints, like would arise if they put it into the renewable category. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly better. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 23:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The Cohen quote has the advantage that it is a definitive use of the word renewable, otherwise you get back into the essay writing mode again. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
A lot of text has been removed from this section again, with no rationale or discussion that I can see. Just biased editors eroding away things they don't personally like. Do I really need to come in here every few months and replace it? — Omegatron 10:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't. It will always be quickly deleted. See The Great Nuclear Debate for discussion on this. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yes, I know. That debate is the reason this section exists. — Omegatron 21:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] MW
Modern wind turbines range from around 600kW to up to 5 MW of rated power. I notice all over wiki things are rated as X MW. Over what time period are these figures for ? Gnevin (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think you might be thinking of kWh and MWh, units of energy. MW and kW are units of power, and are the peak rating, above which it has to feather the propeller or turn away from the wind to avoid damage. If a wind turbine has a duty cycle of 25%, meaning that on average it puts out 25% peak rating, then over the course of a year a 600 kW turbine will put out 0.25x600x24x365=1,314,000 kWh each year for the useful life of the turbine. Duty cycles are very dependent on location and the weather. For example, the 660 kW wind turbine at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy generated 1,112,298 kWh in the last year, a number which will fluctuate by 20% or so from year to year.[1] Since you are asking the question, we may need to make the article more explicit. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you could start an article it would be great , you could just wikify the above , very helpful explanation as i was seeing these kw figures all over with no idea how they related to a daily/monthly/yearly output or what it meant. Gnevin (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above is licensed under the GFDL, as are all contributions to Wikipedia, and you are free to cut and paste it anywhere you think it would help. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you could start an article it would be great , you could just wikify the above , very helpful explanation as i was seeing these kw figures all over with no idea how they related to a daily/monthly/yearly output or what it meant. Gnevin (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I added it to the Wind energy section of the Wind power article. There is also a capacity factor article, and you might want to add it there. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Renewable vs non-renewable
I'm sorry but I really think anyone who can not tell the difference between renewable and non-renewable really needs to go back to the third grade and have someone explain it to them. Renewables are continuously replenished. Non-renewables use a fuel source which is not naturally replenished in a short period of time. It is that simple. I'm the one who added fusion, but not because I thought it was renewable, but because it lasts a whole lot longer than fission, if we ever get it to work. Neither are renewable because both require a finitely available fuel source that is not replenished. Personally I think we already have a well designed fusion reactor located a safe distance from major population centers, 93 million miles, and there is no need to build one any closer. 199.125.109.36 (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Discussion concerns Renewable_energy#Nuclear_power. V8rik (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree nuclear is not renewable, but the most cogent point from the other side is that fusion in the Sun is not that disimilar from fusion on Earth - and yet solar and wind power are counted as renewable, whereas fusion on Earth isn't. So the definition of renewable is somewhat arbitrary, even if it is precise. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not a valid argument. Stars are naturally occurring, a part of the natural world. Fusion on Earth requires humongous machinery. Solar and wind are naturally occurring flows of energy. The word to use is definitive, not arbitrary, in the distinction. We can enhance our use of solar and wind by the use of humongous machinery, but no machinery is required in the case of simpler uses of sun and wind. In other words it isn't the machinery that creates the flow of energy. 199.125.109.38 (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- When dealing with fact tags the supplied reference should be relevant. the supplied ref does not mention nuclear fusion. Also consider Fusion_power#Fusion_power_as_a_sustainable_energy_source. Really the best thing to do here is have any mention of nuclear fusion removed because it is after all just an experimental technology V8rik (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC).
-
- No problem. It's now gone. But after it is developed it will be a non-renewable technology. Sustainable does not equate to renewable. Why do you think renewable energy is called renewable? It could have been called "sustainable energy" but that would not be meaningful, so it was called "renewable energy" which is meaningful. 199.125.109.38 (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It's all about timescale. Nothing is "renewable" if you consider the death of the sun. Cohen's argument is that nuclear fission power could last longer than the sun, and should therefore be considered renewable. Fusion is in the same boat. — Omegatron 10:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dubious
[edit] Comparison of CO2 emissions: cellulose fired electricity generation vs. cellulosic ethanol
The emperical formula for cellulosic ethanol would have to be:
- Cellulose + Water → Ethanol + Oxygen
- (C6H5O5)n + 4n(H2O) → 3n(C2H6O) + 3nO2
The 3n of ethanol would be 85% of the weight of n-cellulose Yet ethanol has twice the energy density of cellulose. (see table here: heat of combustion) Clearly not all of the cellulose can be converted to ethanol. The section labeled "dubious" said 1/3, but was unsourced. It said nothing of the method used for conversion or the efficiency this would imply. Mikiemike (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)--
...It's a good subject to put in, I just think it could be better in terms of the comparison, the calculation/analysis, and info sourcing. As it stands, electric power really isn't in the same category as a liquid fuel like ethanol. Perhaps if the electricity were used to charge an electric vehicle, then it would be a valid comparison. I'd guess electricity would still release less CO2 than ethanol, but it should be sourced or the calculation should be put on the talk page. Also, I'm not convinced that coal has anything to do with it. Mikiemike (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)--
{{editprotected}} Please revert the last edit by user:Dan Pangburn. The reference has nothing to do with ethanol or cellulose, and the essay is not meaningful. 199.125.109.36 (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I just rephrased it to make more sense and be more clear about the refs it uses. There's an OR claim in there that needs a citation now, and the paragraph probably needs to be somewhere else (or needs some more context). NJGW (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Are we even looking at the same reference? The reference added by Dan Pangburn is "Carbon Accounting", yet they wrote a rambling essay about cellulose and ethanol. Instead of adding cn, just take the whole paragraph out. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- The paragraph accurately reported what the source said. I took out the source because it doesn't directly address the statement that requires a citation. If you have other suggestions besides removal of sourced paragraphs, please suggest a rewrite here. Personally I don't think we should be burning coal, and using ethanol for driving is not a serious solution, but the suggestion that co-firing cellulose with coal may be cleaner than driving with it looks like it may be sound (though there still appears to be at least one piece of the equation missing). Anybody else care to have a look at this? NJGW (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever. The mizuho-fg source had nothing to do with the paragraph it supposedly supported, and it is gone now. As far as I am concerned coal should be only used as a building material - in the form of carbon fiber. Burning ethanol is not a good idea in large quantities anyway. It still puts CO2 into the air; even though you regain it later, it is still in the atmosphere. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Always be sure to wp:assume good faith when evaluating a paragraph, and try to figure out the intention before taking out the whole thing. If you take another look at the paragraph, the only statement that source was covering was "The replaced coal would produce 0.0946 kg CO₂/MJ", a figure strait from the carbon accounting article. The rest is mostly straitforward math, and the real missing piece of information was what happens when you co-fire coal and ethanol (which was the CN I put in). I don't think there was ever any intention of using the carbon accounting article to account for the whole paragraph.
-
- Whatever. The mizuho-fg source had nothing to do with the paragraph it supposedly supported, and it is gone now. As far as I am concerned coal should be only used as a building material - in the form of carbon fiber. Burning ethanol is not a good idea in large quantities anyway. It still puts CO2 into the air; even though you regain it later, it is still in the atmosphere. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- The paragraph accurately reported what the source said. I took out the source because it doesn't directly address the statement that requires a citation. If you have other suggestions besides removal of sourced paragraphs, please suggest a rewrite here. Personally I don't think we should be burning coal, and using ethanol for driving is not a serious solution, but the suggestion that co-firing cellulose with coal may be cleaner than driving with it looks like it may be sound (though there still appears to be at least one piece of the equation missing). Anybody else care to have a look at this? NJGW (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] 100% renewable
It would be useful to add the work done in Germany recently on the combined power plant, [2] which links together wind farms and solar farms with biomass and hydrostorage to allow using 100% renewable energy. In the demonstration project, 60% was from wind, 14% solar and 25% from biomass, but biomass is just cheap and inefficient solar storage, so it is likely that the ratios will change over time. The important point was that they proved that it could reliably provide 100% renewable electricity. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- That does look cool. Can you write up a paragraph with some secondary sources? If this can stay 100% reliable, that overcomes some of the main critisizms of wind and solar! Also, check out Juan Enriquez's TED lecture on growing energy, essentially discussing biomass in terms of solar energy storage. NJGW (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- If I see any other references I'll add them. I found out about it through a blog, but you won't want that. As to writing, there is one sentence about it in the wind power article that you can use:
-
-
- A combined power plant linking solar, wind, biogas and hydrostorage is proposed as a way to provide 100% renewable power.[8]
-
-
- If you create the article, which would be a good idea, the history should be included - it stemmed from a bold statement made last July I think, and was done as a so there project. Here are the resources I have found. [3][4] 199.125.109.134 (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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 {{User:Jwanders/ET}}. Figured this was a big enough change that I should post before going ahead with it. Please discuss here--jwandersTalk 21:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Calculation on www.gewp.org
As a new WP editor, I believe I am conflicted for using anything from www.gewp.org on this main article. Could another editor look at that site and reference the "rough calculation" to a known publication or else comment that the calculation is right, wrong, needs improved, etc.? Nukeh (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your site is not coming up, but this is really not a good place to look for peer reviews of scientific papers. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed on peer review. Is this something a fellow editor would note and enter, when prize money is announced: [[5]] ? Would it matter if it were a Google rather than a GEWP prize ?Nukeh (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nuclear Fission power
Hopefully someone will notice this without this request. However, just to make sure:
In the "Other issues" section, change the heading "Nuclear Fission power" to "Nuclear power", for two reasons, we don't capitalize more than the first word but more importantly, there is no other type of nuclear power that generates power today. The article on it is "Nuclear power", not "Nuclear fission power". 199.125.109.36 (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done. — Omegatron 10:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Scenarios
In the Scenarios section, add bullets in front of each of the
- three scenarios to improve readability. 199.125.109.81 (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- How does that look? If I get a chance I'll revisit all the sections, as that one probably shouldn't be the first one. NJGW (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well I don't think you should change the topic heading. Nobody cares that it is brought up by ASES - it isn't an ASES scenario, it is a Renewable energy scenario. I was just going to put an asterisk in front of each sentence. Right now the section looks unbalanced. Also, after the bullet you should start each sentence with a capital letter. 199.125.109.80 (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- For the third one, I would have taken out the word And, and start with In, because it isn't a paragraph, it is a list. I would also change "the" to "a":
- In a "business as usual" scenario, the jobs created by renewable energy would increase 190% by 2030, while jobs created by energy efficiency would increase by 85%.
- In a moderate scenario, the jobs created by renewable energy would increase nearly seven-fold, while jobs created by energy efficiency would more than double.
- In an advanced scenario, the jobs created by renewable energy would increase 17-fold, while jobs created by energy efficiency would quadruple. In the advanced scenario, renewable energy revenues would increase to nearly $600 billion, while energy efficiency revenues would increase to almost $4 trillion.
-
- 199.125.109.80 (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- You can also take out all that garbage in the nuclear section. Nobody cares that GWB once called nuclear renewable (he no longer does) or anything else in the last three paragraphs, other than that "nuclear power is not generally considered to be renewable". 199.125.109.80 (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] cogeneration not included
Depending on the definition, cogeneration may or may not be renewable. But, it is sufficiently important (potentially), and so easily installed (being a modification to existing power plants) that its potential for reducing energy requirements is very significant. Maybe qa new section? ww (talk) 07:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
