Contents

Talk:Energy development: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:49, 10 July 2011

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Energy B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment B‑class This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I propose that we move biofuels section to underneath fossil fuels section. Given that fossil fuels are the remains of old plant life it makes more sense. Anyone objecting to this should say so now before I move it. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object, as every energy source could conceivably be said to be solar in nature, so why not move everything under solar? Put your comments at the bottom of the talk page, which is the progression of talk pages. --Skyemoor (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I'm saying is that if you look at the environmental issues with biofuels, for example when you look at the Aral Sea, it doesn't really fit in with the rest of the renewables. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there are many serious issues with biofuels, but they are not fossil fuels, so classifying them as such would be inappropriate.--Skyemoor (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or does this article seems to be somewhat heavily emphasising electrical energy?--Alf 06:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got a new means of getting energy through your plug I'd love to hear it62.232.4.58 (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed thies from the nuclear section,and thers no place alse were in the article,what are they supoed to mean?That only nuclear can fix the problems of the developing world?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.82.47.118 (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The remainder of the former future energy development article has been copied over to this section. If anything was missed please add it. If anything can be deleted, please do so. 199.125.109.38 (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

user escientist went ballistic on me because i reverted his additions to the article. the basis was clear - some of it was POV, some of it had typos, most of it had no citations, and of the two citations that were proferred, neither supported the contention the editor made in the article text. escientist attacked me in the most over-the-top uncivil terms, but i stand by my reversions of material based upon the headline of this new section. i've just now reverted again the additions he made *after* i explained my rationale to him in detail, but which he's not seen fit to fix. just a general fyi. Anastrophe (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Fusion power is in, and there are no commercial Fusion power examples, then Tidal power, which does have working commercial examples should be fairly included also Escientist (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your attacks are inappropriate. please review WP:AGF. it is uncivil an uncool to be attacking another editor on talk pages. Anastrophe (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Solar power pros" the bullets:

• Solar power imparts no fuel costs

and

• Requires no fuel

are clearly redundant

I merely deleted the second duplicate bullet point, and then an editor (on a vendetta?) deleted my change, and other valid comments on this talk: page.

When an anonymous “volunteer” editor spends over 60 hours a week (as documented by History) doing such things, who is paying them to insert their bias into Wikipedia, and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Escientist (talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your incivility is becoming a serious problem. please stop implying motive. i'm unable to find this particular edit you're referencing. can you please link to the specific diff? thank you. also, please remember to sign your contributions. Anastrophe (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental technology template

I'd like to replace the Environmental technology template with one that matches the standard navbox style, i.e. horizontal instead of vertical, collapsing and typically placed at the bottom of article pages. I've done a mock up of what this would look like at {{User:Jwanders/ET}}. Figured this was a big enough change that I should post before going ahead with it. Please discuss here--jwanders^Talk 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- This image is really cool, I think having an image showing increase and decreasing power consumption based on amount is cool. That being said, it's really hard to understand. The color key is not very big, not well explained, and even after looking at it for 5 mins I'm still not sure I understand it correctly. I think it needs to be redone so that it's easier to understand.--Sparkygravity (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. While a neat idea, I don't think you can properly convey two ideas on the same map. I think two maps should be used instead, one showing rate of change and the other use per capita. TastyCakes (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am conflicted to edit on this topic. Could another WP editor with a backgroud in physics take a look at the calculation on www.gewp.org , and either confirm, refine, or disprove? This is the claim, expressed on the website and backed by a "rough calculation": We propose to use a ship-based energy conversion device that transduces tidal forces via buoyancy to energy and obviates the need for all other power generation on Earth. It would be informative to see the calculation reproduced elsewhere and referenced here - if correct. At the risk of being too bold as a new WP editor, gewp.org now states that: Within the first 24 hours of operation, this website had visitors from 40 different countries. I again request that a WP editor look for a confirmation of the calculation, or better yet, reference the physics to an older source within this section. Nukeh (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't peak oil about as real as the "North american union" (as in, completely made up)? Huge reserves have been found in Brazil, and I have heard about some being found in the USA and Albania not to long ago. The increase in costs is a combination of increased demand from the developing world and greedy OPEC nations/oil companies using instability in the middle ease as an excuse to get more money. Contralya (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For every 1 barrel found we use about 7, and that is increasing as the more easily exploitable fields are depleted. I'm sure its all the greedy arabs fault but I think it may be a bad idea to rely on a magically unlimited supply of oil.62.232.4.58 (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one (or at least very few people) believes oil will last indefinitely. The question, therefore, is not if "peak oil" will occur but when. Whether it's imminent or decades into the future, I don't think anyone really knows for sure. The reserve growth you mentioned were significant, however for some time now we have not been finding more reserves at the rate we use them at. There's still something like 1.2 trillion barrels of oil labeled "probable" in the world, we just aren't adding to that number faster than we take away from it, as was the case until at least the 70s, I think. There are huge "unconventional" sources, such as the Athabasca Oil Sands and oil shales, but it is logistically, financially and environmentally challenging to extract these in quantities enough to make up for a serious decline in conventional oil. TastyCakes (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IEA has published an updated World Energy Outlook for 2008. This agency has always been on the optimistic side, so a drop from projected reserves for 2030 of 1.2 trillion to 1.04 is significant. Here is their summary:

"World oil production, net of processing gains, is projected to rise from 82 mb/d in 2007 to 104 mb/d in 2030 in the Reference Scenario. Although global oil production in total is not expected to peak before 2030, production of conventional crude oil and natural gas liquids (NGLs) is projected to level off towards the end of the projection period. Conventional crude oil production alone increases only modestly over 2007-2030 – by 5 mb/d – as almost all the additional capacity from new oilfields is offset by declines in output at existing fields. The bulk of the net increase in total oil production comes from NGLs (driven by the relatively rapid expansion in gas supply) and from non-conventional resources and technologies, notably Canadian oil sands." http://www.iea.org/weo/docs/weo2008/fact_sheets_08.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoebebright (talk • contribs) 13:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebebright (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

This article seems to have a confusing tone. Maybe it needs cleanup...

The DarkArcher was here (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canada has a ton of nuclear plants. The map is wrong unfortunately, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.166.15.243 (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Image:Nuclear power stations.png? It puts Canada in the category of "Considering new plants", which it distinguishes from "Considering first plant", so that seems correct. But it's out of date about Italy, which is also planning new plants.

—WWoods (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, IP guy apparently does not understand the map. See Nuclear power in Canada. TastyCakes (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map legend is missing one of the colour keys - the bright red, indicating that plants have been decommissioned. It shows up in the enlarged image, but not the standard in-page image. 210.55.20.220 (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Eric[reply]

South Africa has nuclear plants. The map is wrong, but I might have the map confused too: South Africa has a nuclear plant in full operation: from "Koeberg Power Station"

Koeberg Power Station is the only nuclear power station on the African continent. It is situated at Duynefontein, 30km northwest of Cape Town in South Africa on the Atlantic coast. Koeberg ensures a reliable supply of electricity to the Western Cape one of the fastest growing regions in South Africa. It has operated safely for more than 21 years and efficiently for a decade and has a further active life of 30 - 40 years.

The stations' two reactors supply 1 800MW or 6% of South Africa's electricity needs. Koeberg has produced more than 81 000 million kWh of electricity since 1984 using seven and a half tonnes of uranium.

--Gotfredsen (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2005, it was decided not to have a nuclear power controversyordebate on nuclear power article. Instead, that debate is now in an extensive section in Nuclear power#Debate on nuclear power. It seems more appropriate to have that debate complete in that article, and reference it everywhere else, rather than have three separate articles with their own debates (Anti-nuclear movement is the third article involved). I plan to eventually merge the three sections, but wanted everyone to have a chance to comment first - give it, say, a week? Simesa (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did the merge just now. It completes all the merges from various articles that needed to be done. Simesa (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reference given for the first paragraph found today in this section labels itself a blog (see the very bottom border), and in any event much of the text does not come from the reference (although some sentences were copied directly from it).

The second paragraph is a self-published page, therefore a WP:RS problem (as I found out when I tried to quote from it in Pembina Institute). Simesa (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is WP:SYN, "Higher electricity use per capita correlates with a higher score on the Human Development Index (1997). Developing nations score much lower on these variables than developed nations. The continued rapid economic growth and increase in living standards in developing nations with large populations, like China and India, is dependent on a rapid and large expansion of energy production capacity." There are far more factors involved, and correlation does not imply causation. To be NPOV, many other kinds of graphs would be required, including pollution levels, resource depletion, global warming, etc. --Skyemoor (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, the statements are WP:OR. --Skyemoor (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following statement is incorrect, "Limited energy density: Average daily insolation in the contiguous U.S. is 3–7 kW·h/m²". The units are not a measure of energy density. --Skyemoor (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement apparently refers to kW·h/m²/day, which is a unit of areal power density. Thus the sentence should begin with "Limited areal power density:". --Teratornis (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As alternative energy sources are covered with this article, could a link to Solar Power Satellites be included in the "See also" section? Or maybe even include a prose description of this in the section on "Future Energy Development"? - Caseyd314 (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article title is Energy development, not Energy speculation. Nobody is developing the SPS idea today, nor is anyone in any position of significant authority even contemplating developing it for the next several decades. The idea doesn't make sense as long as we have vast, sunny deserts on earth going to waste, not to mention enormous untapped wind resources that are on schedule to get developed before large-scale terrestrial solar power (because wind power is cheaper than solar power today, and is likely to remain cheaper for years to come). Maybe when North Dakota is covered with wind turbines, and the Sahara desert is covered with solar cells, then someone might think about launching SPS into space. --Teratornis (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of no reason not to have a separate summary article about speculative future energy sources. --Teratornis (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think if anywhere SPSs would fit into the Future energy development section. However, I think this section already has some serious crystal ball issues, and while SPS is no more out there than fusion power and artificial photosynthesis which are in the section now, I think this is more a case of them being inappropriate for the article as well. The section also classifies certain technologies as "promising" and is unabashedly speculative on some points (eg "The peaking of world hydrocarbon production (Peak oil) may test Malthus critics"). I think the section should mention only forecasts made by reputable organisations (such as the IEA or the DOE), concerns regarding alternatives for oil and should remove all but the briefest mentions of speculative technologies (ie methods that have not yet produced any electricity for consumption, which would include fusion, SPS etc). The bit about the green revolution and perpetual motion machines also seem superfluous. TastyCakes (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the statement that fossil fuels are "remains of the decomposition of plants and animals" is informative enough. That definition would include compost, detritus, soil, CO2 and H2O etc, none of which are fossil fuels. True, fossil fuels are remains of decomposition of plants and animals, but they're only one specific breakdown route for organic matter. Perhaps this could be acknowledged? "Fossil fuels are the remains of animal and plant material preserved by anaerobic decomposition, and subsequent compression and drying"? A geologist might be able to write something clever? 210.55.20.220 (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Eric[reply]

Um, this is truly the last topic anyone wants to talk about (& forgive me if it's in here & I missed it), but there is some talk about using human waste as an alternative energy source in the future: http://www.ebioant.com/archives/3781. I once heard that human waste is a big problem worldwide because most people (the poor) have no modern facilities to get rid of their waste, which pollutes the soil & water worldwide, so finding a use for all of it is urgently needed. Stars4change (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made an updated version of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_energy_consumption_by_type_2006.png. Can be found here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_Fuel_Consumption.pdf But I couldn't find any data for renewable energy for the year 2008. The BP Statistical Report on Energy doesn't list it and the Energy Information Administration has another set of categories. I am not even sure, how the original author combined the BP and EIA information in the first place, to create the pie chart. I would like to replace the old picture with mine, but I am not sure yet if I should do it. Any comments are welcome. Go die big city (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please rename it as .svg and delete this file? A pie chart would be much better, though. 199.125.109.80 (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This pro/con format is nothing but a list, and needs to be converted into prose. Sure you can describe the benefits in one paragraph, and the disadvantages in another, but you certainly do not need to, nor should label them. What they are is obvious enough. This article has degenerated greatly in the last year. 199.125.109.80 (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insolation is on the order of 10^17 watts. There's not even 10^10 of humans. Unless we each and every one start using energy like a steelworks, the waste heat is many orders of magnitude smaller than sunshine; let's not write silly things like "geothermal heat will cause global climate change". Lots of gassy prose in the article as well; encyclopedias need to be *concise* otherwise no-one will ever plough through to the end of the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article include speculation on systems that use entropy as a source of power? Since entropy always increases it seems like the most long term solution we could hope for, and deserves mention.74.128.56.194 (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]