This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Renewable energy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change 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.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering 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.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering articles
Text and/or other creative content from this versionofHeat pump was copied or moved into Renewable energy with this edit on 19 Jun 2015 10:42. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
I am afraid that the introductory image is not very appropriate for the article - the graph is only about electricity, and the problem is that it is about "power capacity." This means for renewables, the peak capacity is very different from the peak capacity of fossil production. Jirka Dl (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Capacity (uploaded 13 February)Production (uploaded 2 October 2023)
The graphic shows how the capacity of renewable energy is growing, and for fossil fuels is waning. I don't understand the meaning or relevance of your sentence re "peak capacity". —RCraig09 (talk)15:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @RCraig09, I am afraid that there is a huge difference in "power capacity" versus "power production" - or "electricity production" - compare this graph with "electricity production" graph hereor"energy production" graph here (use "Relative" box to see the share. Our graph looks too much optimistic. Especially for FV - in my country (Czech Republic) the average real kW production of FV panel is about 10 % of its power capacity. The graph is correct (but in description it should be mentioned that the graph is about electricity, not primary power), but I do not think that it should be as first on the page. Do not take my comments wrong, I am in favor of renewables very much :-) Jirka Dl (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, User:Jirka Dl. I have added a sentence of explanation to the chart's caption. But I will also look for a better chart. I have created several renewable energy charts, shown in the "Alternative/renewable/green energy/transition" section of my Wikimedia Commons user page, which you are welcome to view. —RCraig09 (talk)20:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Separately, I'm puzzled by the chart in the section "Renewables break new records but growth slows" in this Ember page. It shows capacity (GW) as much less than generation (TW). That representation seems backward. —RCraig09 (talk)05:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Watch out: Gigawatts->giga+"watts" measure power (in this case "theoretical installed "capacity" of the plants). While Terawatt-hour->tera+"watt-hour" is a measure of energy (how much energy the plants actually produce basically). {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk10:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RCraig09 The "production" graph is quite clear (didn't check if units are accurate) and shows the exponential growth of renewables (although it doesn't show how they compare to non renewables). However there is another imprecision: energy and electric energy are not the same thing. Energy = electric energy (electricity) + other forms of energy for transport etc. The source of the data refers to electricity while the graph talks about energy. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk11:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gtoffoletto: — I'm not following exactly which change(s) you think should be made (I assume it's the "...production" graphic shown here). Is it "Renewable energy production" ---> "Electricity production" ?
— Pinging User:Jirka Dl for comments. —RCraig09 (talk)17:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should we also include the "Capacity" graph in the article somewhere? And should we consider showing all other electricity sources in the Production graph? We might consider a graph showing "all renewables" together vs. other sources (oil, coal, gas, nuclear etc. separated) to show the relative share? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk11:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yl10506 (article contribs).
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2024 and 15 March 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lanafan25 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: BrilliantMonkey.
I think the article is on the long side (50 kB (7750 words) "readable prose size"). Who has ideas in which sections some culling and condensing, or moving to sub-articles, could take place? For example, one section could be the one on solar power which is probably a bit too detailed now. Thoughts? EMsmile (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please. Move it to one of the sub-articles, I'd say. I've also added the section size table at the top of the talk page now. It helps to identify which sections are perhaps too big and dominant compared to others. The section on hydropower also seems too long. EMsmile (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EMsmile! I definitely agree that the article could use some liberal trimming. There are bits and pieces of the "Photovoltaic development" section that are perhaps excessive detail for a general article about renewable energy, but I think there is lower-hanging fruit elsewhere in the article to cull. PV is one of the three main sources of renewable energy, and by far the fastest growing one, so I would argue it deserves a bit more space. I would instead start by significantly consolidating the bioenergy and geothermal sections. And some of the more speculative technologies could be reduced to a few sentences each, with content moved to the respective main articles if it's not already reproduced there. Tserton (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks for your trimming work! The article is now at 46 kB which is better. Its balance of topics is better now (see the section size table at the top to check). I've removed some detail on hydropower as I felt that section had become too long compared to the other sections. - What do you think of the lead section, could you give that also a review and check if it's a good summary of the main aspects of the article? EMsmile (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks likewise for your improvements to the article! Don't be bashful about copyediting the sections I've revamped, too, even if that means moving or removing some of my text. I often find it tricky to judge due weight with technical topics like the ones in some of this article's sections. As for the lead, I actually think a lot of it could do with being re-written. I would focus on what/why/how, in that order (so a brief description/definition, mention of climate change, and an overview of the most important technologies)...and then perhaps a paragraph on the challenges facing renewables. Open to suggestions, of course! Tserton (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, always fun to have someone to collaborate with! Regarding the lead, I've copied your comments to the section below so that we have it all in one place. Have replied there. EMsmile (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit of work on the lead. My original intention was only to work on readability aspects. But in the end, I also re-arranged the content a bit. I took out some of the number-heavy content and added instead some new content, e.g. by looking at the table of content to see which sections were not yet summarised. For example, there was no info in the lead on the ongoing debates nor on the emerging technologies which I have added now.
I am still not so happy with it: the lead is now a bit too long (519 words), perhaps bring it down to something in the range of 450 to 500? Also, the readability score is still quite low, many sentences are in red when using the readability script. Perhaps User:Efbrazil is interested to help with this lead as well, after we have been working on the lead of sustainable energy... EMsmile (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the lead, I actually think a lot of it could do with being re-written. I would focus on what/why/how, in that order (so a brief description/definition, mention of climate change, and an overview of the most important technologies)...and then perhaps a paragraph on the challenges facing renewables. Open to suggestions, of course! Tserton (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead does need some work but when you work on it please ensure it doesn't become a "new story on its own" but still remains as a summary of the article. It should try where possible to pick up the main content of the main section headings. And there should be nothing in the lead that is not also in the main text. A summary of the challenges (or debates) section would be very good (I've already tried to do that; it's currently in the last two paragraph).
I also think leads should include citations (I know this is regarded as optional; but due to the usage of excerpts in future, it's better if the lead does include citations). Also keep in mind WP:LEAD in case you are not aware of that manual of style (you probably know it as you've been around on Wikipedia for a long time!). Lead length could be 450 to 500 words, I'd say.
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yl10506 (article contribs).
As for the lead, I actually think a lot of it could do with being re-written. I would focus on what/why/how, in that order (so a brief description/definition, mention of climate change, and an overview of the most important technologies)...and then perhaps a paragraph on the challenges facing renewables. Open to suggestions, of course! Tserton (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
