Talk:Sustainable energy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

how used...

In this edit some text was added to the lead saying how sustainable energy can be used. I think its too limited. Sustainable energy can be used in any way any energy is used. Missing in the text are directly powering machines (e.g., water wheel sawmill, flour mill); transport of people (camels, rivers, sailing ships), goods (fuel saving power kites on cargo container ships) , and waste products (thank god for gravity fed sanitary sewer pipes). I would have added some text but this is the lead, and if it isn't in the body it can't be in the lead summary, so I'll just leave this note here. Carry on! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Good points, thanks. I broadened the examples a bit.[2] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Planned updates and reorganization

I'm planning (real-life time permitting) to do a major overhaul of this article. It's not well organized and much of the writing seems to date from around 2008, with random factoids added later which subsequently attract more random factoids. One thing I'm planning to do is refactor the Renewable energy technologies section so that it is organized by technology type rather than by "First generation", "Second generation", and "Third generation". Numbered generations are not meaningful as headings, and the concept of grouping technologies into generations seems to be based on one outdated paper. Hopefully, a clearer organization will make it easier to keep the article up to date. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Content to be removed in this reorganization

The International Energy Agency states that:

Conceptually, one can define three generations of renewables technologies, reaching back more than 100 years .

First-generation technologies emerged from the industrial revolution at the end of the 19th century and include hydropower, biomass combustion and geothermal power and heat. Some of these technologies are still in widespread use.

Second-generation technologies include solar heating and cooling, wind power, modern forms of bioenergy and solar photovoltaics. These are now entering markets as a result of research, development and demonstration (RD&D) investments since the 1980s. The initial investment was prompted by energy security concerns linked to the oil crises (1973 and 1979) of the 1970s but the continuing appeal of these renewables is due, at least in part, to environmental benefits. Many of the technologies reflect significant advancements in materials.

Third-generation technologies are still under development and include advanced biomass gasification, biorefinery technologies, concentrating solar thermal power, hot dry rock geothermal energy and ocean energy. Advances in nanotechnology may also play a major role.

— International Energy Agency, RENEWABLES IN GLOBAL ENERGY SUPPLY, An IEA Fact Sheet

First- and second-generation technologies have entered the markets, and third-generation technologies heavily depend on long term research and development commitments, where the public sector has a role to play.

First-generation technologies are most competitive in locations with abundant resources. Their future use depends on the exploration of the available resource potential, particularly in developing countries, and on overcoming challenges related to the environment and social acceptance.

— International Energy Agency, RENEWABLES IN GLOBAL ENERGY SUPPLY, An IEA Fact Sheet

Markets for second-generation technologies are strong and growing, but only in a few countries. The challenge is to broaden the market base for continued growth worldwide. Strategic deployment in one country not only reduces technology costs for users there, but also for those in other countries, contributing to overall cost reductions and performance improvement.

— International Energy Agency, RENEWABLES IN GLOBAL ENERGY SUPPLY, An IEA Fact Sheet

Third-generation technologies are not yet widely demonstrated or commercialised. They are on the horizon and may have potential comparable to other renewable energy technologies, but still depend on attracting sufficient attention and RD&D funding. These newest technologies include advanced biomass gasification, biorefinery technologies, solar thermal power stations, hot dry rock geothermal energy and ocean energy.

— International Energy Agency, RENEWABLES IN GLOBAL ENERGY SUPPLY, An IEA Fact Sheet

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Reorg done

I reorganized the Renewable energy sources section as proposed above:[3] Some of the subsections look like groupings of random factoids, but at least the random factoids are not all over the place. Now we can update each section, which should be fun. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Strange emphasis on Sandia National Laboratories

Hi everyone. The "Sustainable energy research" section gives a strangely huge amount of weight to research at the Sandia National Laboratories. Sandia does mostly nuclear weapons research and a tiny amount of alternative energy research. Nearly all the content in the “Sustainable energy research” section was added in one edit in 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainable_energy&diff=prev&oldid=498904073 . We can reasonably suspect that this section was added by someone with a close connection to Sandia. I think it would be best to give the section some extra scrutiny.

In addition, general articles on huge topics like this one should, IMHO, not mention the names of particular organizations or facilities at all unless there is a strong editorial reason to do so. Names of facilities are an inappropriately high level of detail, known less formally at Wikipedia as "cruft", and attract more cruft from competitors wanting to stick their own names in. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• I've nuked all mentions of Sandia, and a bunch of other trivia and boasting. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Content cut from article

Lede

I removed this as it is unsourced. We have definitions that are well-sourced:

Another definition of sustainable energy is that it is consumed at insignificant rates compared to its supply and with manageable collateral effects, especially environmental effects.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the following as a one-sided opinion:

Considerable progress is being made in the energy transition from fossil fuels to ecologically sustainable systems, to the point where many studies support 100% renewable energy.

This implies three things:

1. That "considerable progress" has been made. This is debatable. IRENA says, "Should progress continue at the pace currently forecast, the share of renewables in final energy consumption would be roughly 18% by 2040 – significantly below the IEA Sustainable Development Scenario’s benchmark of 28%."[4]
2. That the rate of progress in the energy transition is a basis for claims that 100% renewable energy is possible. I don't know if this point of view even exists. The studies that support 100% renewable energy would be supporting it no matter what the rate of progress thus far has been.
3. That many studies support 100% renewable energy: True, but there are also many studies that say that combining renewables with nuclear is more cost-effective.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Biomass

I've removed the following very detailed story, and replaced it with an overview of the issue of fuels used for cooking:

Biomass briquettes are increasingly being used in the developing world as an alternative to charcoal. The technique involves the conversion of almost any plant matter into compressed briquettes that typically have about 70% the calorific value of charcoal. There are relatively few examples of large-scale briquette production. One exception is in North Kivu, in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, where forest clearance for charcoal production is considered to be the biggest threat to mountain gorilla habitat. The staff of Virunga National Park have successfully trained and equipped over 3500 people to produce biomass briquettes, thereby replacing charcoal produced illegally inside the national park, and creating significant employment for people living in extreme poverty in conflict-affected areas.

Information on pump, California

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Biofuels

I've removed the following crystal-balling from 2006 and 2007. These predictions have yet to come true.[5][6]:

According to the International Energy Agency, new bioenergy (biofuel) technologies being developed today, notably cellulosic ethanol biorefineries, could allow biofuels to play a much bigger role in the future than previously thought. Cellulosic ethanol can be made from plant matter composed primarily of inedible cellulose fibers that form the stems and branches of most plants. Crop residues (such as corn stalks, wheat straw and rice straw), wood waste and municipal solid waste are potential sources of cellulosic biomass. Dedicated energy crops, such as switchgrass, are also promising cellulose sources that can be sustainably produced in many regions of the United States.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Space-Based Solar Power

I've removed the following as undue weight, advertising, and crystal balling:

The China Academy of Space Technology (CAST) won the 2015 International SunSat Design Competition with this video of their Multi-Rotary Joint design. Proponents of SBSP claim that Space-Based Solar Power would be clean, constant, and global, and could scale to meet all planetary energy demand. A recent multi-agency industry proposal (echoing the 2008 Pentagon recommendation) won the SECDEF/SECSTATE/USAID Director D3 (Diplomacy, Development, Defense) Innovation Challenge with the following pitch and vision video. Northrop Grumman is funding CALTECH with $17.5 million for an ultra lightweight design. Keith Henson posted a video of a "bootstrapping" approach.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Definitions

We had a lot of overlapping definitions and were missing what was arguably the most historically authoritative one, from the UN's World Commission on Environment and Development. I've cut the following:

−

• "Any energy generation, efficiency and conservation source where: Resources are available to enable massive scaling to become a significant portion of energy generation, long term, preferably 100 years.." – Invest, a green technology non-profit organization.
• "Energy which is replenishable within a human lifetime and causes no long-term damage to the environment." – Jamaica Sustainable Development Network

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I summarized the content from the following quotes, and removed the quotes. In general, we try to summarize the content of quotes rather than quoting directly, especially when multiple quotes say similar things:

'Some ways in which sustainable energy has been defined are:

• "Effectively, the provision of energy such that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. ...Sustainable Energy has two key components: renewable energy and energy efficiency." – Renewable Energy and Efficiency Partnership (British)
• "Dynamic harmony between equitable availability of energy-intensive goods and services to all people and the preservation of the earth for future generations." And, "The solution will lie in finding sustainable energy sources and more efficient means of converting and utilizing energy." – Sustainable Energy by J. W. Tester, et al., from MIT Press.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I removed the following uncited sentence: "Sustainable energy can produce some pollution of the environment, as long as it is not sufficient to prohibit heavy use of the source for an indefinite amount of time." It is not clear what or who would do the "prohibiting" in this statement. If someone can provide a source for this point of view, let's discuss how to summarize that source more clearly. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I will be expanding on the following sentence, probably with different sources. I'm copying the sources here as they might be useful later:

• Energy efficiency and renewable energy are said to be the twin pillars of sustainable energy.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The definition of 'sustainable energy' at the beginning of the article page is incredibly vague and wishy-washy, which is the life-story of many articles and publications. It would be absolutely appreciated if somebody can actually define it properly, without beginning with something very vague, and then just jumping into this topic of 'sustainable' energy with nobody really understanding the definition of it. KorgBoy (talk) 06:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

KorgBoy, what do you mean by "beginning of the article page"? Do you mean the very first paragraph in the article, or do you mean the Definitions section? Either way, I don't know how to make it less vague - it seems clear to me. Can you suggest wording? Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Clayoquot - perhaps something like 'sustainable energy' is not a term that describes any particular source of energy itself, but is instead a 'term' that refers to a particular or developing 'practice' (involving a group of people or workers) working towards acquiring/gathering and supplying of energy that does not use/deplete the earth's own natural reserves/sources of energy. Also, eventually, discussions will lead to words like 'renewable energy', and renewable energy refers to energy sources that are by all practical-purposes (assumed) to be inexhaustible (at least meaning still obtainable for the duration of our own civilisation's lifespan). The main issue is that there is always talk about these words 'sustainable energy' and 'renewable energy', and there appears to be no decent definition of their 'meaning'. Sure, lots of various sources provide some definitions, but I think the 'go-to' source (like Wikipedia) can really help everyone out by providing some really solid definitions. KorgBoy (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm working on sorting out the definitions in the lede now. The task is complicated by the fact that one of our main sources for the Definitions section was recently flagged as being from a predatory journal,[7] although this source has been cited by 19 other papers and appears to be pretty sound to me. I'll proceed with clarifying the lede based on the current Definitions section, and look for better sources for definitions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

KorgBoy, thanks again for your comments. I've made some adjustments:[8] Does this help? Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Clayoquot - really excellent adjustments. That was tremendous help actually. Thanks for your help and time Clayoquot. Greatly appreciated. KorgBoy (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Energy efficiency

I removed: "An example of this would be The Alliance to Save Energy's Project with Stahl Consolidated Manufacturing, (Huntsville, Alabama, USA) (StahlCon 7), a patented generator shaft designed to reduce emissions within existing power generating systems, granted publishing rights to the Alliance in 2007." Do I need to explain? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Green energy and green power

I removed some outdated information: "The World Wide Fund for Nature and several green electricity labelling organizations created the (now defunct) Eugene Green Energy Standard under which the national green electricity certification schemes could be accredited to ensure that the purchase of green energy leads to the provision of additional new green energy resources." There's no point mentioning a defunct standard.Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I removed: "A more recent concept for improving our electrical grid is to beam microwaves from Earth-orbiting satellites or the moon to directly when and where there is demand. The power would be generated from solar energy captured on the lunar surface In this system, the receivers would be "broad, translucent tent-like structures that would receive microwaves and convert them to electricity". NASA said in 2000 that the technology was worth pursuing but it is still too soon to say if the technology will be cost-effective." This is the same idea as the Space-based solar power which is already mentioned. Space-based solar power has a lot of challenges and excess emphasis on it (with no mention of the challenges) puts is in crystal-balling territory. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I removed: "Some have argued that although green energy is a commendable effort in solving the world's increasing energy consumption, it must be accompanied by a cultural change that encourages the decrease of the world's appetite for energy." This is true but already discussed in the Definitions section. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Enabling technologies for variable renewable energy

I will be replacing the following with a much shorter version: Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Heat pumps and thermal energy storage are classes of technologies that can enable the utilization of renewable energy sources that would otherwise be inaccessible due to a temperature that is too low for utilization or a time lag between when the energy is available and when it is needed. While enhancing the temperature of available renewable thermal energy, heat pumps have the additional property of leveraging electrical power (or in some cases mechanical or thermal power) by using it to extract additional energy from a low quality source (such as seawater, lake water, the ground, the air, or waste heat from a process).

Thermal storage technologies allow heat or cold to be stored for periods of time ranging from hours or overnight to interseasonal, and can involve storage of sensible energy (i.e. by changing the temperature of a medium) or latent energy (i.e. through phase changes of a medium, such between water and slush or ice). Short-term thermal storages can be used for peak-shaving in district heating or electrical distribution systems. Kinds of renewable or alternative energy sources that can be enabled include natural energy (e.g. collected via solar-thermal collectors, or dry cooling towers used to collect winter's cold), waste energy (e.g. from HVAC equipment, industrial processes or power plants), or surplus energy (e.g. as seasonally from hydropower projects or intermittently from wind farms). The Drake Landing Solar Community (Alberta, Canada) is illustrative. borehole thermal energy storage allows the community to get 97% of its year-round heat from solar collectors on the garage roofs, which most of the heat collected in summer. Types of storages for sensible energy include insulated tanks, borehole clusters in substrates ranging from gravel to bedrock, deep aquifers, or shallow lined pits that are insulated on top. Some types of storage are capable of storing heat or cold between opposing seasons (particularly if very large), and some storage applications require inclusion of a heat pump. Latent heat is typically stored in ice tanks or what are called phase-change materials (PCMs).

Smart grids

I added a mention of smart grids to the section on Enabling technologies for variable renewable energy. As a form of energy conservation, the amount of emphasis given in this section is massively undue weight. The Energy efficiency section should be talking about far more significant ways to conserve energy, such as fuel-efficient vehicles, passive buildings, and public transit to name a few. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Main article: Smart grid

Smart grid refers to a class of technology people are using to bring utility electricity delivery systems into the 21st century, using computer-based remote control and automation. These systems are made possible by two-way communication technology and computer processing that has been used for decades in other industries. They are beginning to be used on electricity networks, from the power plants and wind farms all the way to the consumers of electricity in homes and businesses. They offer many benefits to utilities and consumers—mostly seen in big improvements in energy efficiency on the electricity grid and in the energy users’ homes and offices.

Sustainable energy research

I removed this following passage on jatropha. It is no longer a major area of research as the stuff has proved to be hugely disappointing.[9][10][11]. I did a Google search for "Center for Sustainable Energy Farming" and did not find any evidence that it still exists. The SG Biofuels website contains only one instance of the word jatropha.[12] This is not to say that everyone has given up on jatropha, but I don't think it's promising enough to include in this article. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Several groups in various sectors are conducting research on Jatropha curcas, a poisonous shrub-like tree that produces seeds considered by many to be a viable source of biofuels feedstock oil. Much of this research focuses on improving the overall per acre oil yield of Jatropha through advancements in genetics, soil science, and horticultural practices. SG Biofuels, a San Diego-based Jatropha developer, has used molecular breeding and biotechnology to produce elite hybrid seeds of Jatropha that show significant yield improvements over first generation varieties. The Center for Sustainable Energy Farming (CfSEF) is a Los Angeles-based non-profit research organization dedicated to Jatropha research in the areas of plant science, agronomy, and horticulture. Successful exploration of these disciplines is projected to increase Jatropha farm production yields by 200-300% in the next ten years.

Sources for decarbonization pathways

I'm in the process of expanding and rewriting this:

Various Cost–benefit analysis work by a disparate array of specialists and agencies have been conducted to determine the cheapest and quickest paths to decarbonizing the energy supply of the world, with the topic being one of considerable controversy, particularly on the role of nuclear energy.

Per WP:RS, we should base articles on reliable secondary sources, i.e. scholarly reviews of other studies. I've removed the references that point to primary studies. Our best source for this section is probably the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C, as it represents international scientific consensus and is very recent. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

To Do

Here are some suggestions for things to do next.

Energy sources

1. Discuss the environmental footprint of raw materials used for wind, solar, and battery infrastructure

# Discuss the pros and cons of switching from coal and oil to natural gas

1. Briefly discuss options for microgrids to bring renewable electricity to remote areas
2. Clean up the part about newer nuclear reactor types
3. Expand the carbon capture and storage section
4. Condense the section on geothermal, with sourcing that doesn't come from the geothermal industry.

Pathways

1. Expand the sustainable energy pathways section to discuss aspects of pathways other than greenhouse gas emissions. The IEA's Sustainable Development Scenario is a good source.
2. Discuss the historically slow pace of energy transitions

Add a new section on electrification

1. Write about how electrification might be accomplished, e.g. electric vehicles

Energy efficiency

1. Write about examples of energy conservation, e.g. buildings, public transit

Research

1. Update the Research section

Trends

1. Add: How fast do renewables have to grow to reach 2050 targets? (I've heard something like six times the current growth rate)
2. Add projections for worldwide total energy consumption

Add a new section on economics

1. Discuss costs and economics more holistically. What about carbon taxes as opposed to direct subsidies for renewables? How will transitioning to sustainable usage of energy affect the economy overall?

Government promotion

1. Discuss the IPCC's findings on how to build public acceptance of policy changes

Would anyone like to help? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

More content cut from article

Definitions

I removed the following text, uncited and challenged since February 2019. I haven't been able to find academic conceptual defintions of the terms "green energy" or "clean energy". They are used only informally: Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Green energy is energy that can be extracted, generated, and/or consumed without any significant negative impact to the environment. The planet has a natural capability to recover which means pollution that does not go beyond that capability can still be termed green. It represents those renewable energy resources and technologies that provide the highest environmental benefit.

I removed the following as it's just one opinion out of many. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC) :

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines green power as electricity produced from solar, wind, geothermal, biogas, biomass and low-impact small hydroelectric sources.

Ocean energy

This was over 200 words devoted to three tiny projects. I will replace it with a brief global overview of the topic. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The world's first commercial tidal stream generator – SeaGen – in Strangford Lough. The strong wake shows the power in the tidal current.

Portugal has the world's first commercial wave farm, the Aguçadora Wave Park, under construction in 2007. The farm will initially use three Pelamis P-750 machines generating 2.25 MW. and costs are put at 8.5 million euro. Subject to successful operation, a further 70 million euro is likely to be invested before 2009 on a further 28 machines to generate 525 MW. Funding for a wave farm in Scotland was announced in February, 2007 by the Scottish Executive, at a cost of over 4 million pounds, as part of a £13 million funding packages for ocean power in Scotland. The farm will be the world's largest with a capacity of 3 MW generated by four Pelamis machines. (see also Wave farm).

In 2007, the world's first turbine to create commercial amounts of energy using tidal power was installed in the narrows of Strangford Lough in Northern Ireland, UK. The 1.2 MW underwater tidal electricity generator takes advantage of the fast tidal flow in the lough which can be up to 4m/s. Although the generator is powerful enough to power up to a thousand homes, the turbine has a minimal environmental impact, as it is almost entirely submerged, and the rotors turn slowly enough that they pose no danger to wildlife.

Other (renewable energy sources)

The following is sourced to a single primary study and is about an energy source that nobody is using yet. There are lots of secondary and tertiary sources that cover research into sustainable energy technologies, so we should rely on them to tell us what research is most important. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

In 2012, a team of Italian researchers began work which found that plant leaves generate up to and over 150 volts of electricity when touched by certain materials or blown by the wind. In 2019, the European-funded Growbot project will use plant technology to power bioinspired robots.

Green electricity purchasing

I'm planning to move all of this to a new article and call it Consumer green energy program. Individual-level consumer choices of electricity sourcing make a positive but overall very small contribution to sustainability, and putting a lot of emphasis on it results in giving the article a First World bias. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible to find a reference for that article title? Or find a different title? My immediate response to the first sentence - "A consumer green energy program is a program that enables households to buy energy from renewable sources" - was "is it?" Digging deeper, I couldn't find any support for that claim either in the rest of the article, or in the wider world. Lithopsian (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lithopsian, and thanks for bringing that up (it's lonely on this article and good to chat with another person!). I'm not crazy about the title either, but I haven't had luck finding something suitable. Do you have any ideas? Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe "Green energy purchasing"? BTW although it currently focuses on electricity, the same principles are used to sell biogas to natural gas customers. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Merge proposal for Alternative energy

I propose redirecting Alternative energy into this article. It is mostly duplicative of this topic and very outdated. When people use the term "alternative energy", they are talking about the concepts that are described in Sustainable energy. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have redirected Alternative energy to Sustainable energy. The last version of Alternative energy is here. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Sustainability of hydropower

Although existing hydropower may be sustainable many people (at least here in Turkey) consider new hydropower construction not to be sustainable energy and oppose the proposed new hydro dams. If anyone knows whether that is also true in China or Africa please comment.

So would anyone object if I mentioned briefly in one of the lead paragraphs that building new dams may not be sustainable energy?Chidgk1 (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The article could definitely use a more global and nuanced discussion of the kinds of sustainability issues that come up with hydroelectric projects. These issues aren't limited to new dams - existing ones can cause a lot of problems too for local wildlife. In Washington State there have been recommendations to remove dams to protect salmon, and I believe China has actually decommissioned some dams for the sake of salamanders.

One challenge, I think, is putting these issues into scale relative to other energy sources. My impression is that if we look at the literature on sustainable energy as a whole, the majority point of view is that hydro is generally one of the most sustainable options. As with bioenergy, impacts vary from site to site. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Improvements to article

@Clayoquot: Hmm yes OK re above probably best to get the nuances right in the hydropower section itself before considering whether anything about it should be changed in the lead paras. I suppose you chose this article to improve because it gets so many views compared to most other climate change articles - if so that makes sense. I may be popping in here occasionally when I get fed up with working on country specific articles. Don't hesitate to revert my changes and/or contact me to discuss if you think they are not an improvement. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Chidgk1, Thanks for your recent edits! It's good to have your company :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Piping hydrogen into natural gas systems

ClayoquotYes you are right you can't just pipe 100% hydrogen into natural gas systems immediately because the research will not be finished for several months yet to check how much consumer appliances will need modifying.

But you can pipe in a small percentage right now mixed in with the natural gas.

OK, I've softened the wording accordingly. Thanks for this source - it's an excellent one. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes the Committee on Climate Change has good reports on their website. Problem is UK govt is overwhelmed by brexit so we will have to see whether it is able to convince enough other countries by COP26. I agree with whoever said that to avoid having to negotiate loads of trade deals UK should just become an eastern province of Canada.Chidgk1 (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hilarious :) Thanks for sharing. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The intermittency section has some duplication with the variable renewable energy article

Perhaps Variable_renewable_energy#Coping_with_variability or Variable_renewable_energy#Solving_intermittency or Variable_renewable_energy#Compensating_for_variability should be the main place for the info? So maybe a lot of details there should be deleted and some or all of the info here moved there?Chidgk1 (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Managing intermittency is one of the most important issues in making energy systems sustainable, so I think the length and overall level of detail in this section is appropriate. What were you thinking of cutting? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Too busy at the moment but MAY attempt to condense some stuff in variable renewable energy when I get time. Once that article is in better shape it can be compared with this one to see if any duplication remains and if so which article(s) it should be in.Chidgk1 (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

"Clean Energy Conference" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Clean Energy Conference. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Structure of the article?

I think the structure could be improved. For example maybe if a source is mentioned in the "renewable energy sources" section the research about it should be in the same place? In that way all the info about a source e.g. "solar" would be in one place. Some other parts of the structure are also strange.

Anyone like to suggest a new structure?Chidgk1 (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that merging the sources and innovation sections does make sense. Maybe 15 years ago, innovation and development was super important, but now many of these sources have been market-ready for a while and have been deployed on a big scale. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Research into a particular energy source or technology should be discussed as part of the discussion of that energy source or technology. In the longer-term, we might want to write a section on research that talks about strategic priorities for research and about funding for research in general. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is this article so popular?

From the Massviews Tool I see it is number 5 in the climate change articles list and gets over 10 times the views of carbon offset for example. Might it be that sustainable energy is taught in schools whereas carbon offsets are not?

I'd says there's a lot of discussion nearly everywhere about clean energy, not just in schools. Usually, articles on general topics get more views than articles on specific topics. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah I see figures are distorted sometimes by false positives (e.g. on 24th January). Really is probably more like 3 to 4 thousand views a day. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Nuclear POV concerns

This section will need rewriting quite a bit. FYI, I'm not against nuclear myself, and align with for instance Mendiot.

• It doesn't really go into question of waste
• It doesn't mention the poor compatibility of nuclear with renewables.
• People like Mendiot have a nuanced opinion on nuclear, and never say literally it is green energy. Is listing people UNDUE weight? I think that local former GP director is defitenly UNDUE.
• I'm not aware of any possible future nuclear that goes to zero nuclear waste, instead of litte. Dramatically is NPOV.
• It doesn't go into detail about how far away fusion is.
• About safety; it makes a great claim but with the death tally of major nuclear accidents varying widely, the comparison with renewable energy is very much in debate. Should find other sources and write more nuanced.
• Not sure about the two figures; at least the copyriht should be checked. I couldn't find copyright statement on website. Picking out Germany, who is now using lignite to replace nuclear, may be a bit of a cherry-pick.
• (not pov, but see main article shouldn't be in the middle of section).  Done Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I would appreciate discussion instead of further edits in this section Cloud200. Does this new guy say green energy literally, or is he also just 'not against' nuclear as a low-carbon solution. Low-carbon is not the same as green (vague term) or sustainable (almost synonymous to green probably). Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Happy to discuss. What I'm doing is actually bringing some WP:NPOV to the article which has been historically written in very biased way. The bias can be briefly described as "for wind and solar always take latest technology and best-case scenarios, and for nuclear always take the oldest technology and worst-case scenarios". This reflects long standing PR policy of Greenpeace, Greens, FoE but it has led to a situation, where the article discussed a dozen of prospective RE technologies but the reality on the ground is more and more gas plants for intermittency management specifically because the technologies are just as prospective today as they were 10 years ago. The article, written largely in 2010's, was now completely detached from reality, which was the reason for my edits.

Regarding how to proceed, I value your comments very much and my intention is to ensure all edits are properly sourced and discussed here. One editorial suggestion I have is that we avoid inflating this article with repetitions and delegate as much content as possible to other articles. 90% of the renewable articles I've looked at recently are repeating the same data (usually outdated) again and again, and it's very frustrating. Responding to specific topics raised above:

• Nuclear waste - not subject of this article. It has a dedicated Radioactive waste article with massive discussion on all possible aspects. The only mention here should be the fact that sustainability of nuclear power is debatable due to radioactive waste, which is a valid point related to sustainable energy and is already mentioned.
• poor compatibility of nuclear with renewables - because it has little to do with sustainability and it's not true for anything but the oldest plants in use (see the "for nuclear always take the oldest technology" bias above). Detailed discussion in Load following power plant
• People like Mendiot - I agree, this generally belongs to Nuclear power debate, although such opinions may be relevant here when the topic of the dispute is sustainability itself
• any possible future nuclear that goes to zero nuclear waste - Nuclear fusion produces no nuclear waste in the traditional sense
• doesn't go into detail about how far away fusion is - correct, because Nuclear fusion is not the topic of the article. It's mentioned in "Future technologies" section and that should be the end of nuclear fusion in this article. Same for power-to-gas, hydrogen power and other technologies which are "far away" as well. These should be mentioned in respective "Future technologies" section and linked to their respective articles.
• Should find other sources and write more nuanced - correct, but not here as this is article on sustainable energy not Nuclear safety and security.
• Not sure about the two figures - electricitymap.org is an open-source project on MIT licence[13]
• Picking out Germany - because as of 2020 this is precisely the outcome of Energiewende which 10 years ago was presented as revolutionary way to decarbonize economy.

Cloud200 (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Ideally, the main objections to nuclear should be briefly mentioned, i.e. radioactive waste, weapons proliferation, cost, construction time, and safety. The article should also present what people on the pro-nuclear side of the debate say about each objection. It's a challenge to say this succinctly and fairly, but that's what we're here for. The article doesn't currently claim that nuclear is safer than renewables so there's no NPOV issue there. If I recall correctly, there are nuclear reactor designs in the works that will actually eat existing nuclear waste - this, along with a lot of other stuff, needs sourcing. I have no problem with trimming the list of pro-nuclear people as Femke suggests. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

POV in intermittency

I hate to have two discussions about sensitive matters at once, but putting all these intermittency solutions under a future heading, without proper sourcing even, is again not following facts and a specific POV. Please stop editing and discuss. Saying that energy storage is in pilot stage is very far from the truth with hydropower storage going back a century and being an essential part of grid stability in numerous countries. Long-distance transmission lines have also been present for ages, serving the purpose of getting the cheapest energy where needed, and now being utilized and expanded for intermittent energy. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You're right, this is why I have reworded that in later edit, listing well-established technologies for intermittency management (hydro, coal, gas, nuclear) and separately the prospective technologies.

Having said that, hydro is not going to expand significantly anywhere in Europe because nobody is going to flood whole valleys for storage and in Germany pumped storage covers maybe 5% of the demand. Cloud200 (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not that relevant what percent of demand it covers, as variable energy will still produce some power even in the worst weather, if averaged over a larger area. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It certainly does matter - if country's daily demand is 100 GWh and hydro storage has 5 GWh capacity, this means the stored energy will cover the demand for 1.2 hours (24 h / (100 GWh/5 GWh)). This article[14] discussed the storage requirement under different combinations of wind and solar. Grid balancing has its own challenges, such as transmission line capacity that needs to exist from that hypothetical location where power is available. Cloud200 (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, there are countries small enough that the whole country gets bad weather at the same time. Wind turbines can produce zero energy for weeks at a stretch. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The issues around intermittency and technological maturity/scalability are very nuanced. I'm glad to see this is getting attention from experienced editors such as both of you. I agree with Femke's point that these technologies are way beyond the pilot or prospective stage. They do work - it's just they don't necessarily work well enough in 2020 to make 100% renewable energy cost-effective and reliable everywhere. It would be more helpful to give a sentence or two about the issues, limitations, and maturity of these methods instead of applying a label like "prospective" to all of them. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: @Clayoquot: thank you for taking this forward - right now it's looking great! I was busy with work last few days but will try to clean up the nuclear section a bit. Cloud200 (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Adding Information about Fusion Energy

We are a student group currently working on adding more information about fusion energy in the sub-section of nuclear power. Our research is currently being done on adding more basic information about fusion energy on this page, as well as safety, future designs and currently funded projects.

Cting12 (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I am a member of the student group. Is it ok that we have more details on fusion power than other sections? Also, should we put subtitle "fusion" as big as the "nuclear power" subtitle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydronium99 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hydronium99, Cting12, and Chenzhouer. I apologize for not replying to Hydronium99's question. I was on vacation last week and am just catching up now. The three of you have worked really hard on developing new content around fusion, and I thank you for your efforts. There might be a good place for some of this content on Wikipedia, but I don't think this article is it. Every Wikipedia article has to follow the policy on what we call due weight, which means that we give each aspect of a topic a proportion of the text and images that reflects its importance to the topic as a whole. Fusion, although certainly intriguing, is such a small part of the overall conversation on sustainable energy right now that it really justifies just a few sentences. Sorry to bring bad news - I know you all meant well. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Hydronium99, Cting12, and Chenzhouer. As your writing seems fairly clear already you might like to simplify it further and add it to https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power Although Simple English Wikipedia is supposed to be easy to read I hope whoever marks your work would agree that it is just as hard (if not harder for a technical subject such as fusion) to write good content for that as it is for English Wikipedia. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Is the nuclear power section a neutral point of view and if not how should it be changed

I suggest remove the first paragraph because (as far as I know) no one claims that uranium ore (or indeed any power station fuel) will run out any time soon.Chidgk1 (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph is quite important, as opinions differ on whether nuclear energy is a source of sustainable energy. The paragraph now chooses side. It fails to mention that some people regard it as unsustainable because of waste and weapons.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes the differences of opinion re waste and weapons could summarised very briefly - 2 or 3 sentences should be plenty don't you think? For example: "Some argue that nuclear waste cannot be disposed of safely and thus that nuclear power is unsustainable. Some argue that certain types of nuclear power lead to nuclear weapons by transferring knowledge, such as how to enrich uranium, to dictatorships such as Iran and North Korea, thus risking the world becoming unsustainable. However others contend that nuclear waste can be disposed of safely and that transferring the types of nuclear technology which cannot be used for weapons to countries such as Iran and North Korea helps them to stop burning coal and oil and to become more stable." Chidgk1 (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Two sentences should be plenty, yes. I would remove the examples of Iran and North Korea to save space (and technically speaking, Iran is a mixture between a theocracy and democracy). Removing these two examples also makes text flow more easily. If you can find a good source for this, I'd be happy. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I will wait some time for others to comment here before making any changes related to this POV as this could be controversial.Chidgk1 (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this up - I haven't really been keeping an eye on this article since the pandemic hit North America. I replaced the problematic first paragraph with content that used to be there in February, which talks about more aspects of sustainability. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Scope of the article? Should fuel switching to gas be removed?

Switching from one fossil fuel to another (barring some exceptions where we go to green gas), is outside of the scope of this article. Shall we remove this subsection of Trends and merge the sections of current status/trends? The 'current status' section also talks about cooking fuel, but more in the context of sustainable energy The article now has too much focus on background (the energy system), too little on actual sustainable energy.. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the sections on individual sustainable energy sources should be enlarged but that they should remain short summaries of the main articles (possibly extracts of the leads). Also sustainability is relative (I think? Or is it? Do people agree?) - so the question of whether people should switch from a completely unsustainable energy source to a somewhat more sustainable one is within the scope I think. But I invite opinions from others on what the scope of the article should be. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I cleaned up the repetition about cooking fuel. Overall, I think natural gas actually merits more weight than it's currently given, because it's such a large part of the conversation around how to become more sustainable. The conversation around sustainable energy that we're trying to describe is partly about the no-brainers like putting more solar panels in the desert, and partly about the messy trade-offs involved in transitioning huge amounts of legacy fuel-burning technology given the constraints of where energy storage capabilities are at. Femke, do you want to elaborate on what parts of the article you consider to be background, and what parts you think of as actual sustainable energy? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Clayoquot, hmm, I thought the natural gas conversation in the sustainability debates was basically over, but that is probably very nation dependent. The things I consider the core of this article are the definition, the different sources of sustainable energy (renewable, nuclear, maybe a section about how to make fossil fuel use slightly more sustainable), and what a sustainable energy system looks like (how it deals with intermittency, efficiency, electrification).

Government policies, and mitigation strategies are background that cannot be put in other more appropriate sections. I think these sections are fine, but we might be able to make a tiny tidbit shorter.

That leaves the trend, current status, and the research as vague and ill-defined background sections, which might be better of merged into the appropriate core section. This subsection on hydrogen for instance, could go into the intermittency section. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Femkemilene, I agree the Trends and Research sections would probably be better off merged into other sections. I can't think of a better place for the information that's currently in the Current status section.

With respect to natural gas, we say earlier in the pathways section that "In most pathways, the proportion of primary energy supplied by natural gas decreases, but in some pathways, it increases." As a reader, I would want to know why it increases in some pathways, and whether the assumptions behind these pathways have been criticized.

I love the idea of bringing together the different aspects of what a sustainable energy system looks like :) Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the nuclear power section is too long

It is longer than any of the other sources of power. I propose to shorten it by:

Removing the "future designs" subsection as, although well written, I believe it is too detailed for this article. Leave the "fusion" text as it is as it is short already, but remove subsection heading.

Remove "In 2018 nuclear power was chosen by European Union as part of the low-carbon European power system.[6]" as there is already a 2020 EU sentence above.

To avoid getting into a discussion which takes up hours of my time if you want to discuss "point of view" please could you start a separate talk subsection. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Partially agree. I think the section feels too long partially because the other sections are too short, particularly wind energy.

1. 1. I agree that the subsection heading should disappear, and that it should be shortened. I propose removing the following: Some other reactors, such as the Integral Fast Reactor, can "burn" nuclear waste through a process known as nuclear transmutation. Nuclear power plants can be more or less eliminated from their problem of nuclear waste through the use of nuclear reprocessing and newer plants such as fast breeder plants. The thorium paragraph goes into detail about why it would be more sustainable and is less future focused.
   2. Agree
   3. Let's remove all these names in addition. It's weird to talk about individuals. Sourcing is a bit iffy there as well. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

      1. I really like Femke's rewrite. The section should definitely say something about future designs because research in this area has so much potential.

      2. Agree.

      3. I actually like the list of names because it shows how there are credible people both sides. Maybe trim it have two names for each side? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Done - thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there any point in comparing death rates of different kinds of sustainable energy?

I see someone without a user-id (not sure if an ip address can be contacted - if this is you please comment below) has added "...... and the death rate from nuclear per terawatt-hour is much lower than wind, hydro and solar." indirectly citing https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652615009877

I don't have access to read the whole cite so I cannot see the error bars. I suppose the number of deaths is recorded fairly accurately. But I am guessing that most deaths would be in construction and because many sustainable energy generators are likely to generate for many more years (after 2014 which was the last year of the study) the deaths per terrawatt hour will decrease a lot in future years. So won't all the death rates become negligible compared to fossil fuel death rates (except perhaps rooftop solar if that was split out - due to roof falls) and deaths from use of electricity generally (e.g. electric shock of end user)? So is there any point comparing them? Because surely whatever reduces indoor smoke or diesel use in cities fastest will save the most lives won't it?

It seems rather like discussing whether oranges are healthier than apples when lots of people are eating beefburgers. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Not relevant here. We could compromise by comparing nuclear with fossil fuel. The statement that nuclear is safer than renewables depends on assumptions on how bad radiation is. The conclusion that it's better than fossil fuel is uncontroversial. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Removed it but left in the existing comparison between nuclear and fossil fuel.Chidgk1 (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Definition

My recent change in the first sentence was undone, and I agree that it wasn't the best formulation, but I think the current formulation is logically wrong. Energy is simply not a practice. I've been trying to find definitions of sustainable energy in the literature, but they are relatively sparse, so it is difficult to find enough to have good inspiration for a nice first sentence.

I agree that energy is classified as sustainable depending on the practice: for instance, bioenergy can be done sustainably or not.

Definitions I found:

• Sustainable energy is the provision of energy such that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs (also bit weird, provision isn't the only part of energy practice)
• This paper has an entire section dedicated to the definition of sustainable energy : it indicates that the words sustainable energy and sustainable energy system are used interchangeably. I'm okay with reformulating the first sentence in such a way that it implies the second. The Brundtland definition that we are giving is one of the more common ones, but this paper doesn't give specific examples of how to formulate it.

What about the following sentence: Sustainable energy is energy provided in such a way that: (Brundtland)

Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: yes, that sounds like a good solution. "Provided" somehow doesn't feel ideal either - it implies an agency of the actual source, as if the sun/wind/etc. provided energy in such a way - rather than people utilizing sources in such a way. But I can't come up with a better word, as "generated" is too narrow in the other direction, and "acquired" just sounds needlessly abstract... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: I think this is going in the right direction. I'd say, "Sustainable energy is energy provided and used in such a way that..." because around half the issue is in how you generate energy, and around half the issue is about the pace and the global inequality of energy usage. Regarding Pendericki's Theoretical Aspects of Sustainable Energy paper, I like that paper too but when I used it as a citation, someone else removed it because unfortunately it is from a predatory journal and therefore isn't a reliable source :( Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

References

I think hydrogen is important enough to keep its own section

The subject of this article is "sustainable energy" not just "sustainable electricity". Hydrogen is not primarily about solving intermittency of electricity supply. It is also about possibly replacing the large quantity of natural gas currently used for heat, both residential heating and industrial process heat. How much of this replacement will be done by electrification and how much by hydrogen is debatable, and there should be a good summary of the debate here I think.Chidgk1 (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

In essence, whether hydrogen is used for electricity, transport or heat, it is an energy storage medium. I don't think therefore we should put it under any of these three energy categories. Instead it should be under the section energy storage, which I propose should be a subsection of sustainable energy system (which would come after sustainable energy sources). Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

What do you think of the current structure? I'm really happy we don't have research and trends any more. Hydrogen is still a subheading, and not a sub subheading under storage. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Femkemilene, the structure makes sense to me. Thanks for all your hard work on this! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Energy efficiency and electrification

At the moment these sections are a long way apart. But I understand that electrification (for example of transport) is often a type of energy efficiency.

End of "energy efficiency" section now says:

"A 2011 historical analysis demonstrated that the rate of energy efficiency improvements was generally outpaced by the rate of growth in energy demand, due to continuing economic and population growth. Becaus this e carbon emissions over the period studied were coupled with total energy use, despite energy efficiency gains total carbon emissions continued to increase. Thus, given the thermodynamic and practical limits of energy efficiency improvements, slowing the growth in energy demand has been said to be essential.[41]"

But is this actually still true? If not how should the current situation re energy efficiency be summarised? I could not immediately figure it out from the Efficient energy use main article. Perhaps I missed something about trends in that article? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the efficiency as much more related to electrification than to specific sectors (for instance, city heating is difficult if you don't have to properly insulated houses) or energy storage. That 2011 study needs to be updated. The current situation in terms of energy efficiency is that the developments go slower than would be required for the Paris goals I think. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that the facts the paragraph refers to have changed. But "slowing the growth in energy demand has been said to be essential" is an opinion that at the very least needs explicit attribution, i.e. who is it who says this? Is it a majority or minority point of view? What is the "essential" goal that the sentence refers to? Are there other ways to achieve that goal? I'm in favour of removing that sentence as it currently fails WP:NPOV.

To answer the question of the relationship between energy efficiency and electrification, they are mostly separate concepts with some exceptions, so I think its fine for the sections to be far apart. One exception is replacing private vehicle use with electric public transportation and another exception is replacing gas heating in buildings with heat pumps. Both of these shifts reduce overall energy usage and increase electrification simultaneously. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if this might be common in future or just a tiny exception but might there not be cases where the energy is less efficient but more sustainable? For example if UK produces clean hydrogen and uses it to smelt iron this is likely to be very inefficient at first but more sustainable than burning coking coal. Similarly if hydrogen is injected into the UK natural gas grid at large scale. So increasing energy efficiency does not always increase sustainability Maybe in practice this will not happen unless and until clean hydrogen can be produced efficiently and cheaply at scale. Possibly the energy efficiency section should emphasize improving energy efficiency of housing? Or perhaps use aviation as an example of different types of energy efficiency such as 1) Do you need to travel? 2) Take more sustainable energy form of travel? 3) Make the planes/flights more energy efficient/sustainable. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Chidgk1, Oh, I see. Yeah, the idea of hydrogen for coking coal is an interesting counter-example to the general principle that reducing energy use reduces emissions. But yeah, until someone actually does a lifecycle analysis that calculates the actual footprint of creating, storing, transporting, and burning the clean hydrogen, all we have to go on is the general principle that reducing energy use reduces emissions. I am not aware of a source that questions this general principle.

The questions you ask around aviation are interesting because they highlight how narrow the formal definition of "energy efficiency" is. Avoiding travel, or taking a bus instead of a plane, are forms of energy conservation not energy efficiency.

It might make sense to broaden and retitle this section to something like "Reducing energy demand" and have it cover both energy conservation and energy efficiency. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Energy access

I think the latest reshuffling of this section provides the final piece of the puzzle to solve the structure of this article. Currently we have a background section which includes very different ideas. About half of this section is about energy access and I believe we should rename it energy access, move the information about greenhouse gases to the section about climate change and remove the old Bill Gates quote (if he knew how authoritarian politician would become, would he still say that?

I'm not entirely sure what to do with the coronavirus paragraph. I'll have a hack at it tonight or tomorrow. A new graph should be added to the section about energy poverty, which precludes loads of people in middle and higher income countries to use as much energy as they would need. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

People from the US and opinions on nuclear

Erinstanton, welcome again to the sustainable energy page. You just re-added the opinions of multiple people from the US about nuclear energy. It is considered good practice to discuss changes to an article, when your first WP:bold edit gets undone.

Currently, nuclear is the only section for which we describe individuals having an opinion about it. For other controversial topics we don't do this. I find it quite weird, but I have not been able to find consensus to remove those names and organisations. I think the problem gets worse now that more people are named. What makes these people special? And what makes nuclear special with respect to other techniques? Many of these names are completely unfamiliar people outside of the US. The only name you can assume people know, is president elect Joe Biden.

Could you revert your edit, and convince as here on the talk page that it should be included? Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I just deleted the whole paragraph.[15] As I said above, I wish it were possible to keep a couple of names representing each side. But as often happens in a wiki, lists of names tend to attract more names, as we're seeing, and it's probably not worth the effort to curate them. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

---

I am tempted to merge Low-carbon power into here but then you would probably want to delete most of it as it does not look as good as this article. What to do? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it's important to keep, as it's an important concept. Maybe cut all of the outdated stuff rigorously (even if you'd just keep a stub)? Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's an important concept, but we can cover the concept in a sentence or maybe a paragraph over here. I strongly recommend merging. If we stub it, there's nothing to stop someone from coming along and expanding it again. When this happens, the best outcome is that they do a good job and we'll have to maintain duplicate content in two articles. The worst outcome is that it is expanded in a way that's problematic, and when we fix it or re-stub it the the editor who expanded it gets demoralized. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@MadisonWI1999, Ita140188, PJ Geest, and Cloud200: What do you guys and anyone else think? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: I agree that we should keep it, it is an important topic that I am not sure you can simply cover in a paragraph. It could also be helpful to highlight current projects and legislation regarding low carbon power in various countries. However, I do think it could be helpful to get rid of the outdated content. MadisonWI1999 (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I am against merging. There is a substantial difference between sustainable energy and low-carbon power. For example, some technologies may be low carbon but not sustainable (for example coal with CCS). So all sustainable sources should be low-carbon, but the opposite is not true. We should remove any overlapping material and keeping it where is more appropriate. In particular, I propose to leave low-carbon power as a very short article and moving most of the relevant material here where not covered already (since this article is much more visible). --Ita140188 (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Coal with CCS is an interesting example, because fossil fuels with CCS are discussed in Sustainable energy even though not everyone considers them to be sustainable. There's a lot of grey area around what energy sources are "sustainable" or (to put things the way the natural gas industry puts it) "part of an overall plan to achieve sustainability." One of the things we try to do in Sustainable energy is help people understand those grey areas. Are there any other energy sources that would belong in Low carbon power but not in Sustainable energy? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that fossil fuels with CCS should be discussed in Sustainable energy as some would consider at least natural gas with CCS to be sustainable and we should say why they think that. But as some people think that natural gas with CCS is not sustainable we should also explain why they think that. According to "The Economist" "Adding [CCS] to coal-fired electricity plants .... is a pricey undertaking". But I don't know whether China will decide to do it anyway - perhaps we will find out when the new 5 year plan and NDC are published in the next few months. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

To manage the potential for duplication between these articles, it might work to have a Low carbon power article with a particular focus, and a hatnote at the top of it saying something like, "This article is about x. For y, see Sustainable energy". For instance, the hatnote might say "This article is about the definition of low-carbon power and policies to encourage adoption of low-carbon power. For discussion of specific energy sources, see Sustainable energy." Could something like that work? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How far away from GA?

At some point I'd like to nominate this article for GA status. I think the structure is fine, and it's just a bit of fine-tuning left. What do you guys think should be improved before nominating? Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I am going to mention a few ideas but apart from the first one not actually put my money where my mouth is and do them! The Energy quality article is very hard to understand - should it be linked in from somewhere in this article with a sentence or 2 summarizing it - or should I just put in another request to delete it? The definitions section mentions jobs as part of sustainable development, so if sustainable energy is also about jobs I think more should be written about employment. I think there should be more about biodiversity. Ammonia should be mentioned briefly - see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/14/green-giants-the-massive-projects-that-could-make-australia-a-clean-energy-superpower Chidgk1 (talk) 11:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions!

• No idea what that energy quality article is about. I don't think we have to mention.
• Jobs are important. There is no natural place to put it. I think the most appropriate place in the current structure of the article is in the government policy section. Governments often make decisions about sustainable energy on the basis of how many jobs it creates.
• I'll see whether I can rewrite the bioenergy section to include biodiversity. Upon rewriting the section, I noticed that the effect on ecosystems is already mentioned. The one biodiversity to be specifically mentioned? Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• I'll try to find a reliable scientific source for ammonia add it to the hydrogen section.  Done

Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe off topic but I have started deletion discussions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Energy_quality_(2nd_nomination) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Energetics Chidgk1 (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps Energy development should be linked from here - but I don't have a strong view Chidgk1 (talk) 12:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Femkemilene, Splendid idea! I'll comment in more detail in the next couple of days. I think GA is within reach but have some concerns. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Great. I'm debating doing a peer review first. The article has changed loads, and I'm not sure whether I've replaced all the unreliable sourcing. I'm signing off till Friday, and will address all of your comments afterwards. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

We've come a very long way with this article and have a lot to be proud of. Here's are some remaining issues Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC):

For reference, the version as of Nov 15 is here. Clayoquot (talk |

1. The Energy access section says, "Emerging markets are set to increase energy demand in the stated policies scenario of the International Energy Agency, led by India, whereas demand in the global North is set to decrease.": Since this article is about sustainable energy, we should talk about the IEA's Sustainable Development Scenario instead of (or in addition to) its Stated Policies Scenario, and explain what the assumptions of these scenarios are. Also the article should give the timeframe for these projections, i.e. the next 10 years.
2. The Energy access section has redundant statistics on use of cookstoves  Done
3. The Energy conservation section talks only about efficiency, not conservation, but I don't think this issue is a GA blocker.  Done
4. The Solar power section should mention the reason that prices are falling, i.e. economies of scale, and should discuss the recyclability of solar panels.

   None of the sources are HQRS in that section.. This will require a rewrite from scratch to meet FA criteria, and possibly also for GA.. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

5. Solar heat has too much prominence; wind and hydro are much more important
6. Hydroelectricity: My understanding is that traditional hydro and run-of-river have different benefits and different sustainability issues. R-o-R has fewer negative impacts but is also much more subject to seasonal variability. Currently the article implies that R-o-R can compensate for variations in wind and solar power - if this is the case it should be stated and sourced.

   It's true there's different benefits and issues of course. The prose wasn't great before, but to me the text didn't imply R-o-R was dispatchable. What do you think of current wording? I've reduced the amount of space for R-o-R as it seems to be mentioned little in most overview sources. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

   Re: RoR, I'm fine with giving it relatively little space as long as we mention both advantages and disadvantages. If we only mention advantages, not only is it an NPOV issue, it also makes the reader wonder why R-o-R isn't used everywhere if it's so great.

   I made explicit that compensating for wind and solar is an attribute of hydro dams. If you can find good superconcise wording with disadvantages of R-o-R (f.i. on costs), I'm happy too. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

   I'll take an action item to finish the R-o-R stuff in the next week or so. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

   I've made progress on this but the story I'm seeing in the sources is complicated. I'll keep working on it in the next few days. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

    Done. Golly, doing a literature review for that section was depressing. I'd been under the common illusion that hydro was far more benign. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

   The second sentence in the section says "hydroelectric plants... can compensate for variations in wind and solar power". The reader will assume that this claim applies to all hydroelectric plants (including R-o-R) unless we say otherwise. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

7. Nuclear power could use a more comprehensive paragraph on Gen 4 reactors, as thorium is part of this story but not all of it. This is one of the most difficult parts of the article to write because it's so technical so I wouldn't consider it a GA-blocker, but it would be really nice if we could do it.

   I just read an article about thorium, and I was surprised how long it will take for those reactors to be developed and built. It seems like conventional generation four reactors, while also rare even in new-builds, are more common. I'd like to postpone writing this, hoping that either renewables become too powerful and we can shorten this section, or developments are a bit further and we avoid crystal balls. If we go for FA next year, there might already be more information. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

8. The Sustainable energy systems section refers to "modern renewable sources". This term should be defined - e.g. does it include biomass?  Done

   The addition of "excluding traditional use of biomass" doesn't clarify things for me. What kinds of processes make the use of biomass for electricity production traditional vs non-traditional, and why does the distinction between traditional and non-traditional matter from a sustainability perspective? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

   After looking at the source: I would not recommend Ren21, IRENA, or any other renewable energy advocacy group for this kind of statistic. These kinds of groups have a bit of a reputation for actively promoting excitement around renewables, sometimes by including controversial energy sources like wood. Our World in Data probably has better quality information and wider acceptance. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

   I'm learning here still..

   I find OWiD annoying to cite, with the fact that a proper citation always needs an archived version as the website changes all the time.. They also portray some numbers about renewables in "primary energy" percentage (instead of final demand), where I'm told you get an unfair comparison. BP does the same, so I avoid those numbers..

   I've heard of overly optimistic scenarios from IRENA, but I always believed the data about past trends was basically the same accross the main sources except for units. I'll try to cross-reference data like this in the future.

   The modern biomass is also something that the Internaitonal Energy Agency talk about, which is probably biased in the other direction, so I believe that is fine. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

   Oh yes, I found that the learning curve for this article is brutal. Glad to be sharing it with you :) After looking at this section again, I asked myself why we would want to say how much electricity comes from renewables at all. We know that renewable energy ≠ sustainable energy, so it's not relevant. The key concept to include is that there are some good options to produce electricity sustainably, which is why most pathways propose steep increases in electricity production. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

9. The "Sectors" section should include a sector for industry, although I don't think this is a GA blocker.  Done
10. The "Sectors" section should describe how certain sectors are very difficult to decarbonize, e.g. steelmaking and aviation. In articles like this it's easy to focus on problems that we know how to solve, which is a form of bias. The mainstream scholarly point of view is that the energy transition is going to be very challenging and will require a lot of technological innovation - that's the overall impression to aim for even though it's not happy news.  Done
11. The section on Managing intermittent energy sources says "Overall intermittency can be reduced by combining these sources and in some places batteries can also be combined to eliminate intermittency completely, so that the whole installation produces dispatchable power." I think this significantly oversells the current state of technology. The cited source describes a single project in a single location which involves a key fourth component (long-distance transmission lines) and the project has yet to be built. How about if we remove this sentence and add a bullet to the bulleted list below it saying that it helps to combine sources?  Done
12. The environmental impact of battery production and recycling/disposal should be addressed, as it's one of the things that renewable energy skeptics keep bringing up. It would be good to help the reader put this impact into perspective.

     Partly done So far, I cannot find it described well in overview sources, except that environmental impact exists. I'm not keen on looking for more specialist sources, as that risks giving undue attention to the topic, but I will keep my eyes open, as I'm quite curious myself. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

13. IEA should be wikilinked once per section, otherwise only our fellow energy geeks will understand what we are talking about ;)
14. I've moved a paragraph out of the Electification section and put it into the Energy access section. This move made it more visible that there are some duplicate statistics to clean up.  Done I don't understand the last sentence, which says, "But the report says this can be vastly improved, in part by accelerating electrification.[22]" It seems to be saying that electrification can be accelerated by accelerating electrification.  Done removed. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

That's great feedback. I agree with most of it.

3. I have found it difficult to find good global sources about behavioural aspect of energy conservation. Most sources the energy efficiency aspect. Will have another look.

10. When we include industry, this will naturally follow.

11. I'm not that keen on bulleted lists, but I agreed that that sentence based on a single project is problematic. I'm aware there more projects like that that have been tendered, but for now we should be slightly more conservative.

13. This goes against the manual of style. I'm playing with the idea of bringing this all up to featured article and have it featured at the COP26 on the main page. I will try other means of making this easier to understand.

All of the other points I agree with wholeheartedly. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Upon reading a bit better, there are two further points that warrant discussion.

1. While the International Energy Agency as a highly reliable source, is notoriously conservative and does not have a proper treatment of innovation in its modelling capacity (see f.i. this blog). As such, I will not be including their scenarios quantitatively in the article. Bloomberg New Energy Finance has more middle-of-the-road scenarios I believe. Models as E3ME employed by the European Union follow on the other side of the divide, with very explicit modelling of price declines from innovation//scale.

7. The nuclear section is an extremely difficult to write considering how strong people's opinions are about it. I think the section should be comparable to bioenergy in length: because discussion of its sustainability is more difficult than sources that are projected to be significantly more important in the future (solar/wind), it will be necessary to take more space.

• I agree, I think, that generation four nuclear reactors should be mentioned, as they promise similar advantages as thorium, and may be closer to becoming mainstream. As you said, it's difficult to write considering the wide variety of techniques used in fourth generation nuclear reactors.
• I propose that the old opinions of individuals are removed to make space. Now that there is no more trade-off between price and sustainability in electricity production, I can imagine that individual opinions have changed. As such, neither sources are high quality reliable.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Re IEA, ideally we should include both the IEA point of view and other sources. The EU and Bloomberg are generally good sources, but we should look for reviews of models rather relying on how the maker of a model describes it. Just to clarify, I don't think the article should try to project where energy markets or prices are going. What we should be covering in terms of energy demand are basic concepts like the fact that energy use in some countries is very wasteful, other countries should increase their use of modern energy sources to meet SDGs, and that with careful planning the SDGs and the goal of limiting global warming can both be reached (the IPCC's special report on 1.5 degrees is big on this).

Re: opinions of individuals on nuclear, I would rather keep them because they're actually a very succinct way of explaining the controversy to people who aren't interested in physics and math. I keep up with Bill Gates's POV on energy issues pretty closely and I've seen no evidence that he's changed his mind on nuclear. I see plenty of evidence that he still believes in it, e.g. he still invests heavily in it. Regarding whether there is a trade-off between sustainability and price in electricity production, prices for sustainable energy vary widely between regions. More importantly, what Gates has always been concerned about is the price of producing a reliable, year-round electricity supply, which is totally different from the price of producing electricity. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

BTW I love the idea of getting this to Featured status! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking the GA hurdle is doable (once I finish solar/bio-energy and Clayoquet RoR). But ideally, we want to make optimal use of the reviewer there to make the next step easier. I'll be working on some FA criteria (consistent citations + page number / HQRS / nice pictures) before submitting to GAN. That way, the feedback from our GA reviewer will be more useful. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

further comments by Femke

1. We need to sort the definition section out. Currently, we have four sources for that three pillar definition. Three of them are actually definitions of sustainable development, with a nod to energy. I leave the UN ECE actually defines sustainable energy, and our definition doesn’t completely correspond to that one.

   Furthermore, if you look at the sustainable development goals, energy axis is really prominent in these discussions and that’s why we also have a section about that. It does not occur in our definitions however.

   Sorry, I'm not understanding. What do you mean by "our definition"? The definitions of sustainable energy refer to meeting the needs of the present, meeting growing human needs, public health and safety, and delivering energy to users with high reliability. These all sound to me like ways of saying everyone should have access to energy that is safe and reliable. What am I missing? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

   I'm referring to the last paragraph of her definition section, which details the pillars of sustainable development. The sources don't link well with what we're saying. For instance the book on urban sustainability doesn't contain the words "sustainable energy", or energy even. Energy is also only mentioned offhandedly in the 'Reframing Social Sustainability Reporting' article. As these words are bolded and get a lot of attention, we need to find sources that link them specifically to sustainable energy, or deemphasise them. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

   Ah, I see. The "Who Wrote That?" tool says that I wrote the bullet points in the Definitions section, but when I did that I cited a different source, Prandecki, that was later removed because it was from a predatory journal. The tool doesn't say how the current references such as the book on urban sustainability got in there. We should try to track down the sources that Prandecki used. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

   I'll take an action item to do this. BTW Femke, I'm assuming there are some typos from your dictation software above. I assumed "I leave the" -> "Only the", "axis" -> "access", and "her definition" -> "the definition". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

   Still working on this one. For now I've removed two of the sources that are about sustainability but not about sustainable energy. . From what I've found so far, the content of the Definitions section is OK, but needs a bit of adjustment in weighting different aspects.Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

    Done I've rewritten this section with more comprehensive sourcing. I agree that "sustainable energy" and "energy in sustainable development" seem to be different things in common parlance. However, many reliable sources treat these concepts as one and the same. The sources give very strong weighting to the issue of access to affordable energy, in addition to environmental issues.

   Some reliable sources use the term "sustainable energy" in phrases that imply a more narrow definition, e.g. "affordable and sustainable energy" which implies that energy can be sustainable without being affordable. However, I did not find any of these sources actually defining what they mean by sustainable energy.

   I did not find sources that clearly included energy efficiency or conservation in definitions of sustainable energy, so I removed the concepts from this section. Efficiency and conservation are presented in the sources more as practical means of accomplishing sustainability, rather than as the end-goal. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

   Great. Could you include page numbers for the books now that they're still fresh? The two chapter citations aren't quite consistent. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

   OK, done. One of the books was an ebook so I used the at= parameter. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

2. There are some aspects of sustainable energy that change every year. I’d like to update them very near when we "submit".
3. I’m not the best with prose, and I often ask the Guild of copy editors to work on my submissions. Shall we do that as well?

   I can copyedit probably well enough for GA but probably not well enough for FA. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

4. I just rewrote the bioenergy section, which was intimidating me before. The main motivation was to have the paragraph order based on sustainability, not on type of fuel. Therefore statements which didn't have a source, but were somewhat hidden within the paragraphs.

   The new organization works well. Thanks for doing this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

5. To speed up the good article nomination process, I would like to ask specific people to do the review. Does that sound okay? I assume it will be a co-nomination? Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

   I would like to be a co-nominator for GA. I trust your judgement on whether to ask specific people to be reviewers. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

6. I've removed some instances of the words proponents and opponents. They imply that there are two camps for each of these controversial technologies, instead of a large group of people recognising advantages and disadvantages. There are some further instances of this throughout the text. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Submit for GA next week?

I should be able to get the last four citation needed tags fixed next week. Submit then? Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I think so. I'm halfway through giving this a copyedit now. Thanks for your hard work on this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I've completed a round of copyediting and will do more if I have time. Thanks for suggesting a timeline - I personally find that a timeline and teamwork both help me to focus. The one major sticky point for me is the fact that the "Electricity generation" section focuses exclusively on renewable energy. We spend a good portion of the article explaining that renewable energy is not always sustainable and that there may be a role for non-renewable energy sources. The nuance of that discussion is one of the best features of this article, IMHO.

What I'd love to see instead in the "Electricity generation" section is a discussion of how electricity generation is widely regarded as the easiest sector to decarbonize. That's a key concept that we actually don't spell out elsewhere. Thoughts? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to add a sentence about overall decarbonisation (nuclear plus renewable) in that section. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I forgot that the transport subsection was basically a placeholder, some trying to find good sources for that section is. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Seasonal thermal energy storage

I'm confused by the following sentence: "Seasonal thermal energy storage is common in high latitudes providing heat." What does "common" mean? I haven't read the source as it is paywalled, but my understanding is that STS has yet to be widely implemented. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Not really clear from that source, I don't think. I'll try to delve further into the literature because I don't know. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Have read the source again. I think I paraphrased to closely, but the source gives loads of examples of seasonal thermal energy storage in Europe. I think common might mean common with respect to other sustainable heat solutions, which still aren't that many.. I have rephrased it FemkeMilene (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Femkemilene, Looks good now. Thanks. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Fusion: what is due weight?

In trying to find a more reliable source for fusion, I've searched my five books (dated 2018 to 2020) on the topic of sustainable energy. Only one of them dedicates more than a few words to the topic (1/50th of the nuclear chapter). Even that book doesn't include fusion when talking about the future of nuclear. I assume I won't get consensus for removing it altogether, but could we cut it to one sentence? None of the overview sources (including the book we already cite for fusion) talks about the sustainability aspects. They solely focus on the physics.

I found the following paper, which doesn't even pose with certainty that no nuclear waste will be generated (I was taught at university that the high temperatures generate a tiny bit of nuclear waste). It doesn't mention the safety aspect. It questions whether fuel will be widely available, considering that lithium is now used in batteries. I'm tempted to cut it out completely, and include something about small modular reactors, the current hype within nuclear.

The sources that do talk about fusion described as either experimental or speculative, which may be closer to the truth than prospective. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Just going off current opinion about the feasibility of fusion reactors (let alone commerical ones), the two sentences that are in the article now are probably about right in weight: a far-out alternate proposal that's not going to happen anytime soon, barring some grand breakthroughs. Worth a mention but not more. It would be nice to be able to replace the Forbes article with a better source. The statement about fuel availability and its reference seem okay to me. But if you want to condense it further, I wouldn't object either. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I found a new BBC source and rewrote and condensed the fusion part. It's part of the energy conversation that's out there so a sentence or two is due weight, I think. Something on SMRs would be great too. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

That BBC source is definitely an improvement. Is nuclear part of the sustainable energy conservation? Or more with the cool futuristic technologies? I can live with the current text, but I think a further reduction to one sentence would be an improvement, leaving out the fuel is widely available. Nuclear fission fuel is also quite widely available, so that doesn't contrast with the mature technology. FemkeMilene (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I've further shortened the fusion part. Yes, I do see it as part of the sustainable energy conversation.[16] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

CCS and hydrogen

I've removed: "Some academics say that CCS is needed in the short term because not enough electrolysis will be available in time." It was sourced to this:[17] It is unclear what "enough electrolysis" or "in time" mean (Enough for what? In time for what?). Furthermore I haven't been able to find a passage in the paper that says CCS is a short-term solution. The paper says that CCS is not yet a "viable and scalable technology." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Also gets rid of the phrase 'some academics'. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Page 397 of [[18]] says that blue hydrogen is ahead of green hydrogen. But I don't know where they got that from and unfortunately I cannot see either happening here until we get a really high carbon tariff from the EU. Likely UK and EU will find out soon which is cheaper though - but it may depend on the country as cost of storage will vary [19] So maybe when more info is available it should go in country specific articles.Chidgk1 (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility

Moxy. I was wondering if you could help us with things we can do to improve accessibility. I've got a few questions, but please let us know if there are more problems.

• We've got a few images with small text. Is that considered a no-go?
• Did I do the alt correct for images?
• The multiple image template specifies width only in pixels. It seems to scale similarly to other images when zooming out/in. Is that fine?

FemkeMilene (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Small text within the image is fine...can click to enlarge.

Alt looks good...missing a few...but not GA requirement

....set pixels in this case is what we got to work with.....great job.--Moxy 🍁 09:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The alts that are missing are the ones where an alt would be the same as caption. I was under the impression that you're not meant to provide one there. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Moxy Small text is not OK if it is essential for understanding the image content. Most of our users are on smartphones where small text is not legible without pinch-zoom. On desktop, thumbnails should be legible so people don't have to click an image to see what it is about. It is OK to use small text for stuff like watermarks, but not for understanding what an image is conveying. Efbrazil (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Environmental issues draft

Feel free to edit this, because this is a difficult section with so many issues to give appropriate weight to / omit altogether.

The current energy system contributes to many environmental issues, including climate change, air pollution, biodiversity loss, the release of toxics into the environment and water scarcity. Energy production and consumption is responsible for 72% of annual human-caused greenhouse gas emissions as of 2014. Generation of electricity and heat contributes 31% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, use of energy in transport contributes 15%, and use of energy in manufacturing and construction contributes 12%. An additional 5% is released through processes associated with fossil fuel production, and 8% through various other forms of fuel combustion.[114][115]

The combustion of coal releases precursor elements which form into ground-level ozone and acid rain, especially if the coal is not cleaned before combustion. An estimated 3 million people die each year as a consequence of ambient air pollution, with major contributions from coal and biomass burning. Oil spills during transport at sea harms marine life; when oil ignites instead toxic gases are released to the atmosphere. Around 10% of global water use goes to energy production, mainly for cooling thermal energy plants. In already dry regions, this contributes to water scarcity. Bioenergy production, coal mining and processing and oil extraction also require large amounts of water.

Biodiversity is greatly impacted by climate change, while additional threats from fossil fuel extractions. Low-carbon sources of energy also have the potential to be severely detrimental to biodiversity, with the best locations for bioenergy production in places of high ecological value. Onshore wind and solar, when built in protected areas or wilderness, may also pose a risk to biodiversity.

FemkeMilene (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC) / 20:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Third definition of sustainable

this 2007 source has a very narrow definition of sustainable energy. I'm not keen on adding it unless post-2010 sources use it as well, but good to be on the look-out whether our definition section is sufficiently broad. Geothermal energy can be used in a "sustainable" manner, which means that the production system applied is able to sustain the production level over long times. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

FA criteria (Clayoquot)

Here are some more to-dos:

1. Energy access: Replace the sentence about the coronavirus pandemic with a more general statement about the difficulties caused by lack of electricity. These difficulties are pervasive in many aspects of life: hospitals, education, and economic development all depend on electricity.

   I'm working on this one Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

2. Bionergy: The statement from the Royal Society CCC represents an important POV. I'd like to refactor this into explaining more of the "why" behind this POV, e.g. that we should be using the Earth's biomass-generating capabilities to sequester carbon instead of burning it up.
3. Carbon capture: Add % effectiveness, typically 90% I think.

   1. Added. I found that 90% is not a "typical" measure at all, but a working assumption for research purposes. The theoretical limit might be higher. Some arguments are being made that actual plant performance is much lower than 85%. Very little data is available on actual plant performance. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

4. If possible, separate air pollution deaths from fossil fuels from air pollution deaths from dirty cooking fuels.

   Done in the lead, still needs to be done in the body.

   We were working on the same; I was working on that in the draft on environmental issues. I'll change the lede, as you could argue that this information needs to be cited to a WP:MEDRS compliant source? Also, given that estimates are between 3 and 4 million people per year, giving three significant digits is a crime against significant digits, which is a pet peeve of mine . FemkeMilene (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

5. The section on government policies should say something about government backing of R&D to accelerate new technologies.
6. We really need to address the relationship between decarbonizing the energy system and meeting the Sustainable Development Goals. There are many viewpoints on whether and how could be possible to make both of these things happen. This would be a good source to start: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-5/

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

As for point 2, I assume you meant the CCC? That's independent from the Royal Society if I'm not mistaken. Name-dropping them is probably indeed unnecessary, and may venture towards stating facts/common assessments as opinions.

For 3, we're citing effectiveness at hydrogen of CCS, but that info belongs better at CCS itself. Not sure if 80-90% is representative of all CCS, but its the same range I found in Letchers book (in example statement, not in general statement)...

For 4, We're only mentioning the 7 million in the lede of overall air pollution (cooking + fossil fuel), and attributing that only to the latter. The body doesn't repeat the inforamtion about ambient air pollution.

Which points would you like me to address / which points (from both of our to-do lists) would you like to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Femkemilene (talk • contribs)

For point 2, yes, sorry I meant the CCC. I'm behind on many things in my real-life and on-wiki to-do lists these days and I might not have time to focus on this article for a few weeks. I'd say run with whatever items you please and I'll catch up and do the rest at some point. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

good luck with the to-do list! I'll try to focus on things relevant to the GAN and comprehensiveness, as I wouldn't be surprised we'll get a reviewer during the backlog drive in March FemkeMilene (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Shorten the section on renewable energy?

I think the section on renewable energy could be drastically shortened, as we have a separate article on renewable energy and don't need to repeat all that. So I would remove the sub-headings for the different renewable energy sources; rather list them as a bullet point list and make it easy for people to click through to the sub-article on renewable energy or directly to the sub-article on solar, wind, etc. energy sources. EMsmile (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Compared to overview sources on sustainable energy, we dedicate less space to renewable energy, so I don't think there is much scope for shortening this. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Why have 5 paragraphs on bioenergy when there is a sub-article for it (although it's called "biomass" is that on purpose)? Cut that down to one paragraph at the most. Same for hydropower, it has 3 paragraphs even though we have a sub-article (it's called hydroelectricity though, is that on purpose?). Wind power and solar power could each be cut to one paragraph each. How about simply taking the first paragraph of the leads by using the excerpt function? Then one wouldn't have to update and maintain information on solar, biomass etc. in two places. EMsmile (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The sustainability of bioenergy is very complex, so I think four paragraphs are definitely warranted. The third paragraph about examples could technically be scrapped. The last paragraph should probably be split out to the specific sectors; Clayoquot also indicated that paragraph needs tweaking.

The sub- articles for bioenergy are complete mess. We have three articles with approximately the same scope (bioenergy, biomass, biofuel). My proposal to merge garnered some support, but I didn't have the time to execute and no other volunteer sprang up. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I have often wished for more consolidation between articles on renewable energy. The overall intention is good but implementation is hard. Taking the first paragraph of the sub-article leads wouldn't be appropriate in most cases because these paragraphs tend to start with things like alternative names for the topic, and they don't focus on sustainability. It would be interesting to see if there is a case in which consensus can be gained in two articles for identical wording of a section. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I am still confused why the section heading is called "bioenergy" but then it says "main: biomass". Shouldn't it rather link to bioenergy (so "main: bioenergy") even if that article is not great? By the way, I think the article on biogas has quite high view rates (about 1500 views per day), and is also in need of improvement; it probably also overlaps a bit with bioenergy and biomass.EMsmile (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Uncited stuff about nuclear

The body support the disadvantages mentioned, but doesn't talk about how the high costs of nuclear has impeded growth, and I'm not sure scientific sources agree, as the anti-nuclear movement was more about nuclear arms and safety. While there was a bit of a body-lead mismatch, this has gone worse now. Efbrazil, the article is a GA candidate, please don't insert uncited inforamtion unsupported by the lede. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I will add sourcing and look to update the body of the article. Cost per kilowatt is specifically why China has greatly scaled back its investments there and why you see no growth anywhere else in the developed world. The specific issues around nuclear feed into that cost per kilowatt number. Efbrazil (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

We've worked very hard to reach consensus on nuclear. Be bold, but do be careful :). One of the things we agreed on is to keep all the energy sections very compact, so keep that in mind. Information about a single country should only be included if its super important. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look to be more careful. The typos in the intro and lack of sourcing made me think the article was not really being invested in so I was being a bit more bold than maybe I should. When it comes to new power generation, I think China needs to be mentioned as they're so key not only in their own country but globally in setting a path forward. I added a source that I think is a good summary of the nuclear power cost issue to the intro. Efbrazil (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The intro shouldn't have any sources (we're prepping for FA, and 'no sources in lede' makes sure people don't mention anything in the lede that's not in the body, which is a GA and FA requirement). The article you cited is a description of a single study about a single country, which cannot be used for a general statement. I still believe the previous sentence was better, as it was actually about sustainability aspects of nuclear instead of costs. The article you cited furthermore doesn't even support the claim for the US; it just gives an explanation why nuclear is more expensive now than it was in the past. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, I made an edits as you say. Efbrazil (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

New additions to body

• I think the new additions are too detailed: why singling out two number for a single country?
• KwH -> kWh
• Those factors in cost are a very very rough interpretation of the Larard source, and not quite fair as rooftop solar is f.i. equally expensive. I think the spatial variability of costs is too high to make such a statement.

Coudl you condense and merge with the first paragraph? FemkeMilene (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• As world nuclear says, China "continues to dominate the market for new nuclear build." I'm all for more work going into the cost and build time paragraph though, it's a key issue that wasn't being dealt with. I don't have more time today.
• Thanks, fixed
• Changed solar to utility solar. The multiples are close to accurate and better express uncertainty than providing a precise number and are arguably more intuitive. I fixed the blur between paragraphs, the first one should only talk about whether nuclear is "renewable" with related controversies. The cost and build time issues are separate from the controversy issues. Efbrazil (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

We have 'what' and 'how much' question as the first paragraph for the other sources of energy. Let's keep this article consistent :). The sustainability question then follows in the following paragraphs. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

In addition, I prefer talking about the economic aspect of sustainability in the sustainability paragraph. Not a very strong opinion, but I do think our article is stronger when it is consistent with the definition section. This article shouldn't focus much on renewablenenss, as we have a seperate article about that. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

If a cite can be found, you'll have solved an issue for FA of expanding a paragraph that was too short. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I stuffed the cost issue into the first paragraph and cut China as you suggested. The renewableness issue is really about whether nuclear is "good" or not, which I think is valid to call out as a discussion point. Whether nuclear takes off in the future really comes down to that kWh cost issue though, and how much new designs and build techniques from China can drive down costs and build times. Can they do for nuclear what they did for solar? "Not yet" is the answer so far. Thoughts on latest edit? Efbrazil (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Improvement :). I put one cite needed tag, as the source only supports the second sentence. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

We have a whole article on the topic, so I just linked to that. Efbrazil (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, nevermind a high-quality reliable source required for FA articles. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Clayoquat added a link to a news story based on the World Nuclear Industry Status Report talking about cost. I was going to use that report directly, but the report is reputedly anti-nuclear, so I was avoiding it. Anyhow, is what's there good enough you think? Efbrazil (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I put that link in because there was an uncited claim and I didn't want to just slap a citation needed tag on it, and this article was something I found quickly. I think this whole issue of cost and construction time could use a revisit and better sourcing. To compare nuclear costs to wind and solar, we should be looking for a source that addresses the complexity of the issue because costs vary enormously by location and by how much battery storage you need. And the construction time for nuclear will vary by country as well. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Given the complexity and rapid outdatedness of cost-comparing energy sources, we probably should aim to make a general statement about objections than try to compare costs directly. What Wikipedia is not says, "Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)