Talk:Future energy development

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 About this article 2 Broken link 9 3 Content should be merged with Alternative energy 4 Merged with energy development 5 Reverts 6 Oil 7 Transportation 8 Merge then Delete 8.1 Voting 9 (Moved from Hydrogen Economy) 10 non-peak oil future production image? 11 Stop censoring the facts 12 Encyclopedic? 13 "Fossil" Fuels 14 Revert 15 Please revise the Colin Campbell prediction 16 Cost of extreme weather graph 17 Moon and Tides 18 Perpetual motion 19 Removed text 20 NPOV 21 Article riddled with facts and POVs 22 Comments on article 23 Removed Blogs 24 Cold Fusion 25 Perpuetual deletion 26 Clarity 27 I want some help 28 Deaths per energy unit 29 POV nuclear 30 Blogs as sources 31 Anastrophe deleted the reference to the U.S. Department Of Energy Passive Solar Design Workshop 32 Mini hydro versus micro hydro 33 Biofuel main articles 34 Nuclear power section is too long - my suggestioins

[edit] About this article

It is breakout from Hubbert Peak. See the discussion there.

Why does the first paragraph now substantially duplicate the first paragraph of the article energy development? Does this not indicate that teh two should be merged? --Wtshymanski 16:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Broken link 9

Reference link number 9 is broken. sorry to post it here, but didnt know where else to post. 61.95.149.82 05:27, 13 May 2006

I have changed it to http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/fossil_fuels/the-hidden-cost-of-fossil-fuels.html, but I am not quite sure whether that is the correct link. Somebody pls look into it JdH 10:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content should be merged with Alternative energy

Comments? zen master 01:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alternative energy is a misnomer as it links to renewable energy and this article deals with more. /Aquamarine

[edit] Merged with energy development

Tried to merge with relevent parts of energy development.

Please add new comments to the Merge then Delete section. The above is a very old comment. 199.125.109.127 02:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

Zen master, do not revert to version earlier to merge with energy development. 1. The merge contains information not in the earlier version and now not available in energy development do not destroy that without discussion. 2. You complain of POV, point those out and we can discuss. 3. You also complain about "substandard edit quality", point out examples and we can discuss that also. /Aquamarine

[edit] Oil

Ok, now that i think about it those wikilinks i added to the Oil section are extremely redundant. But anyway, it doesn't make sense for the one "energy development" link for Oil to be to Hubbert Peak which is the theory that oil is/will start depleting eventually. Is there such a thing as conventional oil energy development? Perhaps technology that will allow an increased efficiency of conventional oil extraction? Though I suppose at some point if conventional oil becomes increasingly inefficient it's effectively thought of as non conventional oil (conventional = easy, non conventional = hard, energy needed for extraction wise)? zen master 00:40, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Transportation

In the section on transportation nothing is said about increasing energy efficiency by using (a) land transport instead of air (b) mass transit rather than personal transportation (where practicable, of course). Should this be mentioned here? Exile 13:46, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hay HAY! How about Electric transportation? Maglev, BEV's PHEV's as they consume (in and of themselves) 1/2 to 1/4 the energy ( as near as I can tell by my research in the area ). BEV's tipically consume about 0.5 (in an SUV size vehicle) down to 0.16kWh per mile (lighter weight). Where as the best case ICE, the Honda Insight at 70mpg is consuming 0.48kWh/mile and our 24mpg fleet average is equivilant to 1.46kWh/mile (assuming 33.6kWh per gallon of gas). Both figures are Pump/Outlet to pavement. Look to the AC_Propulsion_tzero 0.16 or 6 miles per kWh ideal effeciency with modern tech. You will have to dig arround the EVDL for many first hand figures from conversion drivers. start here .281, .100, .187, .600, .573, .566, Ranger .500, EV1 .200, Sparrow .150, --D0li0 09:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do those figures account for the losses in generating and transmitting the electricity? I suspect not - If you do, the figure to use is closer to 10kwh/gallon - which makes the electric car about the same as a conventional one.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of electric transportation - but it doesn't solve the problem of how to generate the electricity in the 1st place. Whatever ultimate fuel source you use, the end result is to accelerate and decelerate a large lump of metal containing passengers. Only by increasing the occupancy rate of vehicles can significant savings be made - which means car-sharing, buses, trains and the old wartime question "is your journey really necessary?"

In effect, we will have to wait around for a while until a few other people want to make the same journey, rather than as at present driving off whenever we are ready.

Exile 14:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] (Moved from Hydrogen Economy)

Electricity from dams has been cheaper than electricity from oil- and gas- burning turbines in many parts of the world for a long time. The United States has built dams on nearly every river that can sensibly be dammed; this resource is almost completely built out. In order to mitigate some of the unexpected evironmental damage, the U.S. is currently destroying dams faster than it is building them, but the rate of change is not large.

Like hydroelectric production, geothermal electric production has been cost-competitive, and in use, for years. Geothermal resources are not as widespread as hydraulic resources, nor typically near population centers, and so geothermal is not currently well built out.

Nuclear electric production was once thought to be the next oil. Walter Marshall famously declared that it would be "too cheap to meter". It now appears that nuclear electric production is about as expensive as hydrocarbon-based production. Nuclear production is as high as it is in France, the U.S., and Japan principally because it was viewed by legislators as bootstrapping a domestic industry and also as being less dependent on volatile foreign supplies, and thus a stabilizing influence on the domestic economies.

Wind power appears to be the next booming supply of energy. Proponents like to point out that it is the fastest growing source of energy (in late 2004), but this is relative to a small installed base. In small parts of the world with strong steady winds near population centers (i.e. Denmark), wind power is already price competitive, and is being built out. As wind turbine prices come down and the technology for siting them in difficult conditions (primarily offshore) matures, wind electric production is expected to grow to supply a significant portion of the world electric demand.

Solar electric (photovoltaic) production is not currently competitive with utility-scale generation from any of the above-mentioned sources. It is interesting primarily because it can be practically located close to the demand in many parts of the world. Because it costs so much to move electricity, production that is close to the demand is worth more than remote production. Even with this advantage, photovoltaic production is currently only competitive when supported by large subsidies or when its use allows a grid connection to be eliminated entirely.

There are many other alternative energy supplies under development. Tides, ocean currents and deep ocean thermal gradients have all been proposed as sources of energy to be tapped. A few significantly large tidal generators have been built, but they form navigation hazards and no forseeable buildout would be expected to supply significant amounts of power on a worldwide scale.

Large scale biomass programs, like midwest ethanol added to Californian gasoline, appear to consume more energy than they produce and are only cost effective for the producers due to favorable tax and subsidy policies.

Some comments about incorporating this into the article. 1) The focus should primarily be the world, not the US. A separate article can be created for the US if desired 2) I think some of this information is too detailed and may be better suited for the renewable energy article. 3) Have your sources ready since I disagree with some of material. Ultramarine 20:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok dokey. I did not write it, but I felt it was poorly suited for the Hydrogen economy article and I do not like shredding information that could be useful someplace else. I have no qualms with choosing the tastier morcels and putting them in renewable energy. Quasarstrider 14:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] non-peak oil future production image?

Ultramarine, it looks like you added an image on future energy production that included a increasing line for oil production all the way through 2025? This image ignores peak oil? At the very least the estimates in this image are disputed? zen master T 16:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let me rephrase since you caveated, I don't think that image should be included in this article at all given that it's a very disputed image. Everyone has discredited those production estimates. zen master T 18:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is the mainstream view. Ultramarine 18:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was the mainstream view 2-10 years ago, there is no way it's the main stream view. There is more evidence these numbers are intentionally misleading to avoid panic in the public about impending peak oil. Oil executives have labeled them "dangerous over-estimates". What citations do you have for your claim this is the mainstream view? zen master T 19:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a reference in the caption. It is from EIA, in other words the US government. The "World energy outlook" series by IEA gives essentially similar projection, in other words the world's premier energy research organization. The reports are from 2004 and 2005. Ultramarine 19:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But there is an overwhelming amount of information and sources that disputes their estimates? Where is all that additional oil going to come from when all the largest oil fields on earth are past or at peak? Is that chart perhaps a demand estimate, not a supply estimate? How many barrels per day does the 2025 data point indicate? I will be removing that image from this article unless you address my concerns with massive citations and dispute the counter evidence. zen master T 19:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is the mainstream view. Read my sources. I will go all the way to arbitration if you try to censor the mainstream POV. Ultramarine 20:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The non propaganda division of the U.S. government even disagrees with these "estimates". I repeat, where is all this extra oil going to come from? All major oil fields globally are past or near peak production, this is a fact. zen master T 22:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are several opinions who all claim to represent the facts. There are several projections published in peer-reviewed journals and most have peaks much farther away than ASPO. If you disagree and claim to know the truth, publish the final proof in a peer reviewed journal. Then come back. Wikipedia is not the place to do original research. The mainstream projection should not be censored. Ultramarine 22:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How can you claim it's the mainstream view when there is an equivalent amount of estimates and predictions that dispute those figures? In fact, the overwhelming majority of evidence is against those estimates. Why are gas prices high? zen master T 23:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is not equivalent number of estimates. The US government and other government agencies and the IEA project continued oil production increases for several decades yet. Regarding oil and gas prices, they were very high in 1970s and there certainly was no peak then. Ultramarine 23:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can we at least include an image from what you call the "pessimists"? I don't think the article should present that image as fact, the article has to mention the controversy and competing predictions as it is super notable and super relevant. The article should also mention that most oil industry geologists and advocates (including Matthew Simmons) believe in peak oil theory and a peak within the next couple of years. zen master T 23:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The image is not stated as a fact, but as a projection, and it is stated that there are opposite views, including a link to Hubbert peak. Provide reference for the claim that "most oil industry geologist and advocates" believe in a peak within the next couple of years. By the way, should the image also be in the Hubbert peak article? Ultramarine 00:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let me rephrase, we need another image in there right underneath, we can call it "the competing projection", time will tell who is right. No that image shouldn't be in the Hubbert peak article because if you've read the Hubbert peak article you'd realize those government estimates have been thourougly discredited as "dangerous over estimates" and "wishful thinking" and "no basis in reality". Compare your image to the image in hubbert peak right now that indicates non-FSU, non-OPEC production has already peaked? That image came from the U.S. government too... zen master T 00:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, this is the mainstream projection. It is ridiculous that is should not be shown in Hubbert Peak article but the minority view should be shown in both articles. Your image certainly do not show any global peak has occured. Ultramarine 00:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dispute that it is the mainstream projection nor majority view. Do they say where all this additional conventional oil is going to come from? zen master T 00:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, read. If you want to disprove, write to an peer reviewed journal. The view of the US government and the common energy organization of the OECD countries certainly counts as mainstream. Ultramarine 00:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To a certain extent I don't care as I've always thought of Future energy development as your little play area or sandbox for propaganda (as I knew it would turn into ever since the spilt off attempt from Hubbert peak). If you'd read the Hubbert peak article you'd know there are numerous peer reviewed journals that take the "pessimist" view. The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas is a near consensus among geologists. Listen to geologists, not government propaganda. try to read http://www.peakoil.net/ sometime. The only explanation I can come with for peak oil being [intentionally?] "wrong" is there is plenty of oil left globally but the U.S. doesn't control it. zen master T 00:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please back your statements with references. Please avoid censoring the mainstream POV, even if you do not like it. Ultramarine 01:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Given Hubbert peak theory and high oil/gasoline prices the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is the mainstream POV, even though you like it. Right now your claims are at best uncited, the current U.S. government is hardly "mainstream". Do they explain their methodology? Do they explain why the pessimists are wrong? They don't even mention the existance of controversy because then the house of cards would collapse. zen master T 01:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since you are going in circles, I make a summary.

Please back your statements with references. Read yourself what the report says, do not ask me to read it for you. If you want to disprove, write to an peer reviewed journal. It is ridiculous to state that is should not be shown in Hubbert Peak article but the minority view should be shown in both articles. The image is not stated as a fact, but as a projection, and it is stated that there are opposite views, including a link to Hubbert peak. Regarding oil and gas prices, they were very high in 1970s and there certainly was no peak then. The view of the US government and the common energy organization of the OECD countries certainly counts as mainstream. Please avoid censoring the mainstream POV, even if you do not like it. Ultramarine 01:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did read it, and I consider everything else I've read to discredit it. It remains disputed. Suspiciously enough, you aren't even arguing that the image is accurate, just that is is the "mainstream" view. You are not arguing that the estimate is the "best", or made from the best data, or uses the best methodology, very interesting indeed. Shouldn't you want to disprove the "pessimist" view with the great accurate methodology of the U.S. government estimates? (please note the sarcasm) zen master T 01:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I note that there are several views and do not try to censor those that has passed some academid review. Or decide which one is the best. That is not what wikipedia is for, I you want to do that, write to an peer reviewed journal. Ultramarine 01:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to prove that it is "mainstream". But more importantly you should be arguging their estimates are accurate, but you aren't doing that. Are you a bot or on a POV mission Ultramarine? (I am assuming good faith by asking) zen master T 01:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I try to represent all POV, not censor some like you. I do not claim to know which one is accureate. All that are discussed by scientists should be represented. Ultramarine 01:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So we can and should include a competing estimate image then? Pstudier, I've pointed to the Hubbert peak image in this thread previously but Ultramarine apparently ignored that. zen master T 01:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Instead of arguing forever, why not put up both an optimistic and a pessimistic projection? There is a pessimistic image at Hubbert peak that could be used. pstudier 01:52, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

Well, Zen-master do not want any optimistic projection on "Hubbert Peak", but wants the pessimists to be represented in both articles. The graph on Hubbert Peak is bad in several ways. It is old and only show non-OPEC, non-FSU countries. Ultramarine 01:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The difference is on Hubbert peak everything is presented as a theory, whereas on Future energy development the implication with the image at the top is that those estimates are fact and there is no dispute. I am ok with both images/estimates being placed in both articles however, let's do that. There is a criticisms of Hubbert peak section is there not? zen master T 02:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is stated that there are opposite views. I oppose the current graph from Hubbert peak than only shows some of the least important oil producing countries. Find a bettter graph and we can discuss. Ultramarine 02:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That hubbert peak graph is from the U.S. government. Primarily, I have a problem with the way this article includes the image at the top, it should be moved farther down in a section with more context. zen master T 02:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Take the graph from ASPO newspaper, it seems to be in PD and is more complete with data from the whole world and actually shows what ASPO predicts. But do it yourself.

I will move the EIA graph down somewhat, to fossil fuel section.

[edit] Stop censoring the facts

Zen-master, stop censoring facts you do not like. The nuclear industry do not make up these facts. Read what they write, give other references if you disagree. As of now, you are censoring without justification. Ultramarine 01:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am ok with facts, I am not ok with obviously redundant pro nuclear industry marketing cruft. Why do you so apparently or obviously shill for the nuclear power industry? (I am assuming good faith by asking) A pro nuclear industry marketing website is hardly a reputable source, scientifically speaking especially. But first and foremost the content you want kept in the article is woefully POV, very redundant and phrased horribly. Side note: let me know what you think of the changes I made to the Nuclear power article. I recall myself making a comment on the renewable energy article a few months ago predicting a push for nuclear power, Bush's speech tonight proved that right, which is apparently why there were POV trolls pushing for a definition of renewable energy that included nuclear back then. It's all coming together now. zen master T 01:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WNA is obviosuly trying to promote nuclear power. But they have scientific references for all their claims. Should all references to ASPO be removed from peak oil since they try to promote their view? Please give opposite references, do not censor. I will add the facts back unless you can show that they are false. Ultramarine 02:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

apples vs oranges, peak oil is presented as a theory everywhere, what you want added to this article is obvious marketing cruft that denies the existance of "better" facts. True facts should be presented as such, not using alleged facts for an obvious advocacy operation [facts shouldn't be "advocating" anything, people/groups/industries do]. Plus, that advocacy or pro nuclear industry POV ignores the historic near consensus against an expansion of nuclear power (in the U.S.). zen master T 02:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Last try. Give references that shows that the scientific references WNA gives are wrong. Note that I have used scientific studies from environmental groups in the article, for example to show the environmental impact of fossil fuels. Should they be removed? Should ASPO be removed? Ultramarine 02:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not just about scientific consensus, marketing cruft is not allowed on wikipedia. That content isn't just "facts" it is obvious POV advocacy. zen master T 05:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Science is allowed as is facts. Add your own POV backed with references, do not censor just because you do not like the facts. Ultramarine 08:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV means all POV should be mentioned. Not that none should be. -- Ec5618 08:38, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

The info is already in the article, redundant and irrelevant facts are a form of POV, especially when presented in the manner they were. That stuff is completely unbalanced and Ultramarine has no intention of balancing it. "cost competitive" ignores cost of radioactive nuclear waste disposal. "remains toxic indefinitely" referring to chemical industry waste is obvious POV designed to mitigate fact that nuclear waste is radioactive for 10,000 years. The fact that Ultramarine is citing the same pro-nuclear industry website 5 times in one section is another strike against him. The claim that nuclear contributes less deaths than coal and hydro is entirely misleadling (even to the point of lying for obvious POV), it counts dam (failures) as purely a hydro energy source which is misleading, the other reasons damns are built include: irrigation, reservoirs, flood abatement. That pro nuclear industry website also conviniently ignores deaths to nuclear plant workers, but they suspiciously include coal/hydro plant worker deaths, why is that? That info is so obviously propaganda POV that to counter it would be like counting the 120,000+ people that died in the atomic blasts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII against nuclear power (in which case nuclear power would lose). Coal may definitely be more harmful than nuclear, but the emphasis should be on increased efficiency, rather than merely arguing between coal/hydro and nuclear to maintain the status quo of energy production. If renewable energy sources have less deaths per energy unit then we shouldn't use coal or nuclear? Is 0 deaths per energy unit an option? zen master T 08:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You make many claims here. Add these objections to the text if you have any scientific papers that back them up. Ultramarine 14:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master, I was curious just how you would obtain zero deaths per unit of energy. Every energy source has costs, unfortunately, and sometimes those are paid in lives. My specalization is in industrial safety, and I can tell you that accidents don't need a big coal/gas/nuclear/hydro plant to occur. We make trade offs every day, accepting the risk to gain something of importance. Oh, and POV is not involved when you cite a fact. It is scientific fact that chemical hazmat is hazardous until destroyed (which cannot occur chemically for something like arsenic or lead), while radioactive hazmat naturally decays.

To the author - nice work. OmegaPaladin 11:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedic?

I have some doubts as to whether this article belongs in the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article seems to contain a great deal of speculation, mixed in with a limited number of facts, and as such is inappropriate for being largely extrapolation and speculation. Kelly Martin 22:02, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

The same could be said for Hubbert peak, global warming, overpopulation, space colonization, and all the subjects under category Futurology [1]. The future of energy production is extremely important. It is researched by most governments and several international organizations. It is the subject of numerous peer-reviewed papers. Since it is of great practical importance and studied scientifically, it can be in Wikipedia. It is certainly more important to have than numerous Wikipedia articles describing imaginary future lands and societies in computer games and movies. There are 130 Wikipedia articles about Star Trek, so surely Wikipedia can find place for a few articles about important future concerns like oil depletion, overpopulation, or energy development. Ultramarine 00:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I sense that Wikipedia is evolving from a being strickly a reference for finding our about current information (encyclopedia) to a true forum for discussing social issues(Futurology). This is especially relevant when those socital issues interface heavily with technologies, as they do in energy development. If the contributors desire to continue in the direction of scientific dialog (supported by references) about opportunities, then this article not only belongs, but could be the basis for changing how grass roots collaborative research is done.

[edit] "Fossil" Fuels

The sections on "fossil" fuels could be balanced with some information on the abiogenic theory of oil production, in which case the oil fields are largely self-replenishing over time. I'm also uneasy about the statement that fossil fuels will eventually run out. This is too obvious to be mentioned, as any fuel source will eventually run out due to the law of entropy.

MSTCrow 04:34, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• "Run out" is also a limited viewpoint. We could mine a carbonaceous asteroid to get more carbon if we wanted to continue using natural mineral fuels. But the energy is more concentrated in the fissionables in a metallic asteroid. (SEWilco 05:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC))

I also have read that oil may not be literally a "fossil fuel" but if there is more, deeper down, it will take a long time to come up where we can get it. We have used about half of what is easily recoverable, without noticing that more is appearing. Anyway, the fuel is not the scarce resource. The air is. Sunlight will last as long as the earth is inhabitable and fusion, and perhaps even fission, nuclear may last as long. --David R. Ingham 06:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

This is correct. As fascinating as the abiogenic petroleum origin theory is from an epistemological and earth science standpoint, it is not very relevant to the future energy development discussion. Whether or not there are massive amounts of petroleum deeper in the earth, little of it will be recoverable in the next few decades. Cheap oil is apparently at an end, and so energy production will inevitably shift to other sources, a process that is quite obviously gaining momentum. The scary possibility, from the perspective of public health and global warming, is that it might devolve back to coal burning, of which we can still do plenty. The alternative, developing new energy production technology and/or infrastructure, especially clean/renewable sources, is quite expensive and liable to trouble economies even as they're reeling from soaring petroleum prices. Fluent aphasia 17:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

As I see it, the greatest danger to human existence is in this century and, perhaps, the next.

• Fortunately, with enough non-burning energy the carbon in air can be converted to hydrocarbon fuels and the same convenient gasoline/diesel energy storage technologies can be used. Getting the needed clean energy is the hard part. (SEWilco 06:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC))

I think refraining from overconsumption is the hardest part. --David R. Ingham 15:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• What is "overconsumption" depends upon the resources and effects. (SEWilco 20:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Revert

The Bhopal disaster caused 15,000 or more immediate fatalities - Chernobyl caused 56 immediate fatalities with the probability of almost 4,000 deaths later on [2]. Simesa 16:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the article you cite said in 2005 The number of people killed by radiation as a result of the Chernobyl disaster, the world's worst nuclear accident, is so far 56, much lower than previously thought, United Nations organisations said on Monday. A report compiled by the Chernobyl Forum, which includes eight U.N. agencies, said the final death toll was expected to reach about 4,000 -- much lower than some previous estimates -- and that the greatest damage to human health was psychological. So the figure of 56 fatalities is as of 2005, and presumably includes the 31 immediate fatalities. The figure of 4000 eventual deaths is not generally agreed by any means. Andrewa 23:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please revise the Colin Campbell prediction

"1989 - Colin Campbell predicts that this is the peak year."

• This* is the peak year? By 'this' you mean 1989 or 2005? I couldn't find a reference backing either, can you cite a refernce where he makes the claim. I put Hubbert & OPEC predictions in, which are surely the big two opposing views, not sure what the point of putting wannabe Hubberts in is.

(added) The reference you added is heresay (a person saying Campbell said it without quoting even the book title), I've found the book title and put that in instead. I can't confirm that those pages make that claim, so I've asked the University for a copy of the book to confirm and will put up a scan of the relevent part later.

The reference [3] is from the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Science magazine [4] and does mention the title of the book in the reference list. Ultramarine 12:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cost of extreme weather graph

Contrary to the statement of the person that deleted it, this graph has been extensively reviewed (see the link from its talk page) and I believe the consensus is that the extrapolation is reasonable, that there are no implications about the causes, that it has an NPOV, and is only borderline original. —James S. 01:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Exponential rise predictions are unsustainable in the long run, because they tend to infinity very fast, and nature tolerates no infinities - so question is how long that run is before the prediction fails to apply. One extremely resistant and rare exception is Moore's law, that's still hanging in there, even though every once in a while its demise is predicted, but so far it hasn't happened, computing power doubles every few years, and we know that we have ways to go until we even get close to the computing capacity of the human brain, so it may apply for a good while. But sooner or later it happens, exponential predictions are unsustainable in the long run because they tend to infinity. Similar things are exponential rise in oil production in the lower states, as the begining portion of Hubbert Peak graphs show, and you could always find that an exponential curve-fit is the best fit for the initial rise portion of such curves, but such curves know nothing about the hump in the middle of the graph or even declines. Extrapolations are always risky. In general linear extrapolations are the most confortable, parabolic and higher order ones are less comfortable because they tend to infinity faster, and exponential extrapolations are always the scariest. I would recommend that the above graph be chopped at 2010 as a bare minimum, with a linear extrapolation instead of an exponential one. Blindly applying math to a problem may only emphasize random artifacts, and one should always look at the output and judge the results. Sillybilly 04:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Exponential curves very closely fit the onset of a Gompertz sigmoid curve, and I think that makes sense because the underlying cause most closely fits a logistic sigmoid curve, so to the extent that the increased atmospheric energy is proportional to radiative forcing, the begining of the effects of that energy ought to look like an exponential, too. The wide 95% prediction confidence intervals clearly show the great uncertainty of the extrapolation, and are the traditional means to convey that uncertainty. Please note that a linear extrapolation of the data would seriously underpredict 2005, with over $120 billion in extreme weather costs already above the exponential curve's 95% confidence interval for 2005. I am not blindly applying math. Please see the detailed discussion at Talk:Global_warming#Image:Cost-of-storms-by-decade.gif for more information. —James S. 06:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

you said '$120 billion in extreme weather costs' - i presume you are quoting the cost as adjusted backward to 2001 dollars, or are you modifying the existing graph to 2005 dollars when suggesting it falls within the 95% confidence interval? i'm most curious why you don't defer posting this graph all over wikipedia until you have current, accurate data to do your modeling against. it'll be 2006 in a few days. surely, if you are as committed to promulgating this model on wikipedia as it seems, you should show similar tenacity to acquiring the most recent, reliable data to model against, rather than data that's nearly eight years stale. i think the graph should be pulled entirely until you're working from a complete data set. Anastrophe 07:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, it usually takes more than a few days to total up worldwide costs. I've answered your questions about inflation at Talk:Global_warming#Inflation_adjustment. You are welcome to try to do better with your own graph instead of removing the work of those who understand inflation. I have provided the data set and links to the tools I have used. Because you have acted without proper justification, I am replacing the 2nd revision of the graph, because the fact that people like you exist mean that a more serious warning needs to be published. —James S. 22:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

let me see if i have this straight - you're claiming that you understand inflation simply because i made an error in calculating inflation? your sentence above, as it stands, is nothing but a rhetorical dodge - you did not address the question at all. you quoted $120 billion in costs for 2005. are you quoting 2005 costs, or costs as adjusted for 2001 inflation rate, which is what the existing dataset is against? for purposes of your graph, if you are quoting 2005 costs, then the value to plug into your graph would be $110.6B. is that what you used? then there's the other rhetorical dodge - that it takes more than a few days to tote up the worldwide costs. how does that affect the problem that your dataset is nearly eight years stale? at worst, you'll be limited to 2004 costs as the most recent tally. what's stopping you? trouble finding the data? that's not an excuse. if you're going to push your beliefs via this graph, then you have an obligation to use the most current data available - or don't post it at all. newer data could very well confirm your curve - i do hope you'll do an overlay once you get the new data, showing the difference. Anastrophe 17:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

back again, having read your last response again. i tend to skim content, and didn't read the final part of your sentence after you said you were replacing the second revision. with this comment - "because the fact that people like you exist mean that a more serious warning needs to be published" - you've just completely invalidated your claim to empiricism for your graph. you aren't attempting to publish a good faith extrapolation of the data, you're attempting to push your POV. as far as i'm concerned, that's the final word - and i'll be reproducing that quote elsewhere, since you've just admitted to overt POV pushing. that should put an end to your attempts to promulgate this graph. Anastrophe 18:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if there were no objections, the graph is only remotely connected to subject of the article. There are many possible forms of damages from global warming and none is discussed in the article in great detail because such details are outside the scope of the article and due to size limitations. These things are discussed in detail in other articles. The same should apply to graphs. If such damages should be mentioned in great detail in this article, there are much better examples, like a decreasing land mass, or if one wants a more catastrophic scenario, release of methane clathrate. Ultramarine 11:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moon and Tides

This shouldn't even have come up, but here's a ref: [5] Simesa 16:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perpetual motion

Has neither produced energy in the past and it is not proposed in the speculative section that it will in future hence it is offtopic. I traced the section back to Ultramarine, who appeared to add it in response to a different user's adding the "Opec" predictions entry and the "Hubbert Peak" entry. Ultramarine, please agree to remove it, or we request arbitration.

I agree with you. So what is the probem with this "The history of perpetual motion machines is a long list of failed and sometimes fraudulent inventions of machines which produce useful energy "from nowhere" - that is, without requiring additional energy input." Ultramarine 19:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

So you accept the point that it hasn't produced energy in the past and hence off topic.

Has not, does not, will not. But they are a part of the history and should be mentioned.Ultramarine 19:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Not part of 'energy' development.

Certainly part of the history of attempted development.Ultramarine 19:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Not so, you yourself accept that it has never worked and never will (i.e. you accept that it is impossible). Impossible things could not be an attempted anything. I request comments from third parties, I note that you commented, but the reversion at that time was done by SillyBilly, is there any other people care to comment?

What? Many people try things that they don't succeed with. Perpetual motion has its proponents, many websites push it in various forms, it has even been patented. It should be included, and debunked. pstudier 20:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The term perpetuum mobile should be part of everyone's vocabulary when it comes to energy, because newcomers to this topic might have the wrong idea that it's possible to create such a device. I don't think anybody here disputes the fact that they obviously don't work, but whether they should be included to direct people to learn about it. The currently accepted stance in science is a fundamental belief in the law of the conservation of energy, but hey, you never know, someone might find a violation in this principle, just like violations of principle of symmetry were found experimentally That would be a whole new era in science, but for now we stick to this principle of conservation of energy with religious dogmatism, and laugh at anyone claiming to have invented 'yet another' device that generates energy for free, and we'll label it with the pejorative "perpetuum mobile" description, and add it to the rest of the long list of such devices. Sillybilly 21:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems a waste of space, even on the talk page. David R. Ingham 05:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, it is a good example of how unrealistic people have been about energy, and therefore not out of place where it is. David R. Ingham 21:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed text

{Nuclear proliferation is the spread of) nuclear technology, including nuclear power plants but especially

That's not what the main article says! Come off it. Nuclear proliferation specifically means nuclear weapons. Probably a nice try by some anti-nuke campaigner.

As it is much easier to construct a nuclear weapon out of plutonium than the Low-enriched uranium used in more common Thermal reactors,

Actually, it is impossible to construct a nuclear weapon from low-enrichment uranium (or from reactor grade plute for that matter, despite Carter's claimed test which was performed with an intermediate grade), and far, far easier to construct one with HEU than with any sort of plute. The problem is getting the HEU. So I guess the statement above is true, but it's hardly likely to increase the understanding of anyone reading it. Andrewa 14:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article has serious pro-"renewables" bias and is generally badly written.

Examples:

Future energy development faces great challenges due to exaustion of fossil fuels see Hubbert peak theory, an increasing world population, demands for higher standards of living and less pollution. The entire industrial world is utterly dependent on cheap energy. Without it,Agriculture, transportation,and much else that a developed nation takes for granted would be devastated, leading to a Malthusian catastrophe.

Emotionally-loaded and unsourced statements.

All the energy we consume in the form of work is generated by the four fundamental interactions of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force.

This is relevant somehow ?

Still, economic growth will require a continued increase in energy consumption. Since 1970, each 1% increase in the Gross world product has yielded a 0.64% increase in energy consumption[7].

You can prove any relationship is linear if you plot log-log and use a fat marker. Now the magic graph (1.1, p 41 of the linked report) very clearly shows the slope getting lower, that is 1% increase in world GDP corresponds to lower and lower increase in energy consumption. (They don't seem to have the raw data in the report)

and provide cheap energy if the costs of pollution and subsidies are ignored.

Governments usually provide various services which can be seen as subsidies artificially lowering the price of fossil fuels: A variety of oil- and transportation-related infrastructures and services such as providing roads and highway police for vehicles almost exclusively using fossil fuels; government agencies doing research on all aspects of fossil fuel technology; various tax breaks; and huge militaries and even wars to protect access to foreign fossil fuel reserves[9].

Now last time I checked energy was heavily taxed, not heavily subsidized. This is the worst part of the article.

Actually, this is true. Governments tend to subsidize big oil companies and their allies in the energy sector, while heavily taxing the final customer, you and me. This is a win-win situation on many levels. 82.72.113.246 09:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear power has been subsidized by 0.5-1 trillion dollars since the 1950s.

A serious source needed.

Taw 23:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have clarfied one source. Please do not deleted sourced material.Ultramarine 06:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article riddled with facts and POVs

This article has many factual distortions and omissions which appear to result from a certain POV being advocated, most probably the traditional green/renewable POV. Take this piece about fusion energy.

Fusion power, if feasible, may not have the traditional drawbacks associated with fission power

Emphasis mine. It is a fact that it does not has the traditional drawbacks. The nuclear waste is comparable in radiation to the output of a conventional reactor, but its half life is managable, years instead of billions of years. Furthermore, there is no danger of a meltdown and this makes fusion particularly attractive. If magnetic confinement would somehow seize, the plasma simply seizes to fuse and it will cool into an inert and harmless gas.

but, despite fusion research having started in the 1950s, no commercial fusion reactor is expected before 2050 in the international ITER project. Many technical problems remain unsolved.

This is a typical argument from detractors. Supposedly the reader is to be induced in prematurely rejecting fusion because viable economic installations haven't been realized yet. Controlled nuclear fusion is an immensely difficult task with countless obstacles. It is in fact a tremendous achievement that fusion power and control has already been achieved! Fusion research and accomplishments have in fact been demonstrated to follow a perfect Moore's law and we are now nearing the plasma condition regime where power extraction and sustainable stability is possible.

Proposed fusion reactors commonly use deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen, as fuel and in most current designs also lithium. Assuming a fusion energy output equal to the current global output and that [...] does not increase in the future, [...] the known current lithium reserves would last 3000 years [...] lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years.

Here we leave rethoric for outright deception and nonsense. Lithium is not used in the fusion process. I think the author of this shoddy piece confuses lithium for tritium. In modern schemes (i.e. in tokamaks like JET and ITER and the future DEMO) the plasma consists of a D-D or more commonly D-T mix. Tritium is radioactive with a halflife of 12 years and so does not occur in nature except as byproduct in various radioactive processes. It can be made in nuclear reactors (in fact, in the fusion plant itself) from lithium, deuterium or boron.

This leaves us with an earth-occuring deuterium abundance enough to sustain all forseeable energy needs for many billions of years, which brings me to this...

The Sun, our current source of fusion power, is expected to last about 5 billion years, and provides many times the amount of energy currently available from all other known sources.

Again we are presented with a nice piece of work. Altough it is theoretically true that for the sun to evolve from its current state into a white dwarf will take 5 billion years, the earth itself will be a boiling no-mansland ala mercury long before that. It is very likely that the earth will become uninhabitable for water-based lifeforms in 'only' 1 billion years. To insure our survival (assuming we are still water-based creatures by that time) we must either move the earth to a wider orbit or migrate into space.

No matter how you look at it, fusion energy is comming, and it will become the main energy source in the future. How far away we can't say, but to simply abandon it would be utter foolishness. The impact of global warming was forcasted 50 years ago and today we still don't do anything about it. Such mammoth projects, both essential to our well being if not survival simply take a lot of time to accomplish and we must allow for that.

If we eventually move out into space fusion becomes even more essential because solar energy, the only other viable alternative, simply does not cut it.

In the short/medium term, we'll see a lot of other green sources like solar energy, hydroplants and wind. Not every region needs large fusion plants, many smaller communities can be happily provided with the more regular renewable sources. Diversity is the key, but it would be a mistake to put our energy supply at the mercy of the whims of cloudcover and wind. Albester 10:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The article says:

"The nearest-term possibility is solar power satellites, where solar cells are placed on orbiting platforms in 24-hour sunlight; the energy is then beamed to earth as microwaves received by arrays of receiving antennas. A fundamental development in space launch technology (such as a space elevator) and/or massive industrial developments beyond Earth orbit will be required to make such a scheme economically competitive with terrestrial sources."

This is mistaken. SPS can be built with helium-cycle turbines that don't use solar cells at all, & flown with existing launch systems, right now. SPS is more efficient than terrestrial solar, often touted as the "green solution"; trials of power conversion & transmission systems that SPS would use have achieved 65% efficiency, compared to 20% for terrestrial solar. (I rely on Heppenheimer's High Frontier and Pournelle's A Step Farther Out.) If USG would stop wasting billions on fusion research that is no nearer to producing power than it was 30 years ago, when funding began, & finance an SPS pilot project, we could stop sweating global warming--& start exploring the solar system without spending billions on rockets... The article further says:

"Fissionable materials could theoretically be obtained from asteroid mining; however, the technical barriers to asteroid mining are probably considerably higher than those of breeder reactors"

To begin with, I don't see the mania for "fissionable materials". Neither do I believe the barriers are high; as Pournelle points out, boiling off rock to get at ore is the preferred method; this not rocket science. Trekphiler 07:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on article

I believe this article needs a lot of work and it is very important to have it very balanced. I previously removed some comments that were uninformed and negative to renewables. They will have a key part to play in future energy production, but balanced considerations related to fossil fuels and nuclear are also extremely important. Fossil fuels may even be able to play a continuing role with clean coal technology and sequestration of carbon dioxide produced by their combustion. I am tasked with increasing the section on bioenergy which is my personal area of knowlege but I suggest the article on the whole is getting very unweildy. --Alex 10:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs work. As I pointed out above there are several factual errors and unbecomming rethoric designed to push a POV. In my opinion a more balanced article would focus more on realistic long term energy prospects. This includes the usual renewables but should also include fossil which will remain an important player in the transition era for the comming century. And in spite of what some like to hear, nuclear fission will remain as well if only to serve in high density demand centers that require a reliable and continuous supply of energy.

But ultimately it is evident that the prospects of traditional renewables are limited and something better must come along. This is fusion, but before it can be realized on a greater scale we need the alternatives as an intermediary. Albester 13:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are right. It also needs to retain an international focus. Countries like China and India are expanding their energy infrastructure often using coal power plants and old technology. Whether we like it or not I believe the article must take into consideration the wider picture as well as the idealistic one. It looks like nuclear will continue to play a role here in the UK. Nuclear power plants cannot, however be readily turned on and off to meet the significant daily fluctuations (ie. the morning fluctuation as everyone brews tea here!). I was in discussion with one of the largest electricity generation companies here in the UK recently who indicated their preference was for gas. Technologies such as anaerobic digestion (high efficiency systems producing biogas with 70% methane content) helping meet this for smaller localised generation. Their reasoning was that gas can be stored and used to generate electricity when the demand was present. Localised generation facilities (c2-6MW) are also more efficient from the electricity loss point of view. --Alex 13:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Blogs

This list of blogs was remowed by User:Wmahan. Maybe some of these are useful.

• Alternative energy blog
• Marshall Brain's "AltEng" blog
• Energy outlook
• Futurepundit
• Green car congress
• LOCE Wind and Wave Energy Weblog
• Monkeysign
• NEI Nuclear Notes
• Peak oil Optimist
• Peak Oil Anarchy
• The Ergosphere
• Climate Change Action
• The Peakist Peak Oil weblog and news aggregator
• Energyorbit :: Towards Sustainable Power and Renewable Energy
• Green Bloggers Bloggers dedicated to a sustainable future
• Alternative Energy Bloggers
• The Oil Drum

[edit] Cold Fusion

I'm sorry but a link to a wiki is not a valid source. Said wiki seems to be talking about this document [6].

"While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review."

I don't see how this justifies saying that Cold Fusion has a new lease on life. I would say that it has the same hopeless lease as before.Christopher 15:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perpuetual deletion

I deleted this:

"The history of perpetual motion machines is a long list of failed and sometimes fraudulent inventions of machines which produce useful energy "from nowhere" - violating the second law of thermodynamics."

While true, I don't see the connection to the article.

BTW, the eco-zealots' position, recycling can save us, also violates the second law. Trekphiler & 02:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarity

The article says, "with an estimated break-even point of $35". $35 for how much? Trekphiler 02:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I want some help

I just started Comparison of automobile fuel technology. I could use some help. Mike92591 03:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deaths per energy unit

I removed the following from the nuclear power section:

Historically, however, coal and hydropower power generation have both been the cause of more deaths per energy unit produced than nuclear power generation.

because the link provided (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.htm) does not work. I wanted to check that because I assumed that this refers to unsafe 19th century mines, which would make a comparision unfair. DirkvdM 18:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, [7] says "Per amount of electricity produced, hydropower causes 110 fold, coal, 45 fold, and natural gas, 10 fold more deaths than nuclear power." but doesn't cite its sources or calculations so I wouldn't rely on it. Better is [8] which says "The report, prepared for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, says ... that in proportion to the amount of power produced, power stations fuelled by coal and oil or driven by hydro power had caused 1000 times as many deaths as nuclear stations, and gas-fired stations had caused 15 times as many casualties as nuclear ones." There's [9] which quotes the DOE as saying "recent research shows that the frequency of accidents and the number of deaths from nuclear power production is less than for energy production from coal, oil, natural gas or hydropower." and gives nmbers on the next slide. See also Chernobyl disaster#Comparison with other disasters - eliminate Chernobyl (a plant that never could be built in the civilian West) and the debate goes away. I'll restore the sentence. Simesa 19:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV nuclear

http://www.world-nuclear.org is used way to many times,and by no means neutral

in ther sites objectives we can read

“

The World Nuclear Association is the global private-sector organization that seeks to promote the peaceful worldwide use of nuclear power as a sustainable energy resource for the coming centuries.

”

• --87.65.163.96 00:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

W:NPOV includes the POV of all sides. It is not an exclusion of views. Add a sourced opposing one if it is missing.Ultramarine 01:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Nuclear Power being listed at the top of sustainable energy sources. Nuclear Power is a fossil fuel. Even if advanced methods are used, it's not sustainable or renewable. To mine, mill and process Uranium requires a very large amount of fossil fuels. As the price of fossil fuels go up, cost and the energy required to extract the uranium becomes prohibitive. The energy required to decommisssion the nuclear power plants once they've been used for 25-40 years is also prohibitive.74.61.37.1 11:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blogs as sources

"The pessimistic, argue that due too the Hubbert peak theory, production will peak following a hubbert curve [10] ,no matter what the price of uranium will be(assuming identical technology)." The given source is a claim in a blog. John Busby, the person who makes the claim, give no source so it is unverifiable. Furthermore, it is just strange. Uranium is not as fossil fuels, it is present in most rock and the seawater and will not suddenly run out, only gradually and slowly become more expensive.Ultramarine 15:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You are forgetting,that your not interested in uranium,it self.But in the energy that it contains.If energy is not an issue then sure ,you can mine arbitrary low grades.Uranium is not like say gold,with gold you just pour in more energy,and you can even extract it from sea water.For uranium,pumping alone that water,will already cost you 30% of the energy it will give you.It's not uranium that will run out,is minable ores of uranium that will run out.In other words,the question is, if the juse worth the squeeze.--87.64.8.74 16:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right about the that enery extracted is what is important, but your unsourced claims regarding how much is required is incorrect. Uranium contains extremely much energy, so extraction from seawater or granite still gives a net energy gain.Ultramarine 16:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It contains extremely much energy,BUT like i said,pumping alone will eat 30%,if you add up further processing,no one knows how to do it.The concentration are too low.May be you have a link that show that they did that.The constraint is not just to produce it(say ,you just want to make a bomb),you have too produce it with net gain.For my source ,i wanted to show that hubbert theory is applied to uranium ores,the difference is,like with fossil fuels,that ,mainly economist ,claim that global hubbert curve is rubbish since the market will fix it.I read my source as saying that we are in the rising part of the curve,so we are on the hubbert curve,that's what i'm saying.If the hubbert curve is nice enough,you can use it to guess future discoveries.You holding more or less that the resource is infinite.Keep in mind that all this supposes identical technology.

“

Extending this argument to the uranium market, the timing of the uranium production peak for the Athabasca basin resources remains an estimate, but based on the exploration history summarized above and announced production plans, seems likely to occur near, and possibly before, 2020. Secondary supply "resources" will also follow a Hubbert curve, since this category represents the sum of numerous finite quantities of contained uranium. The final secondary supply curve will not likely be smooth, as annual supply will continue to be determined by business and political events, constrained by the market and in some cases by processing capacities. Still, it is important to recognize that secondary supply, too, will reach a point of decline. Numerous uranium market analyses in recent years have highlighted a likely gap in uranium supply, usually within the next five years, and usually incorrectly. One possible reason for this difficulty is that two of the largest supply sources, the Athabasca basin and the secondary resources, have been on the upwards portion of their Hubbert curves while these forecasts were made. Even in the petroleum sector, accurately forecasting the production peak for any given producing region has proven difficult when production is still rising, although M. King Hubbert himself did get it right in 1956, when he forecast that the lower 48 US states oil production would peak about 1970 (actual was 1971 – Ref 2). The absence of accurate information about the quantities of secondary uranium supplies has clearly been another problem in forecasting.

”

• --87.64.8.74 17:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

From the conclusion:

“

Security of uranium supply, in the sense of absolute scarcity of resources, is not a foreseeable constraint to reasonable further development of nuclear energy (Ref 5)

”

Ultramarine 17:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your claims regarding energy of pumping is unsourced. Furthermore, why should you pump? Have a look at this: [11]Ultramarine 17:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your to used in wikilowering.It's not sourced because i didn't intended to puted in the article.I read it in a pdf long ago.You can add your stuf here Uranium mining#Recovery from seawater.Shure there are other methods then pumping, i just whanted to show that very fast,you have consumed more then what you will gane,but be aware that extraction from sea water,or something with very low grade,you will end up with both the problem of renewable and nucleair with out the benefits.--87.64.8.74 17:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence for you claims.Ultramarine 17:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anastrophe deleted the reference to the U.S. Department Of Energy Passive Solar Design Workshop

Do others believe Wikipedia should ignore U.S. DOE / Oak Ridge National Labortory best-available topical information? The strong bias in his inconsistent application of edit rules is obvious in the History of several related Wikipedia articles. There may be room to improve style, but to delete important content is difficult to understand. This is not meant to be a subjective personal attack - Just a factual, well-documented observation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Escientist (talk • contribs) 18:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

your link did not go to the US DOE Oakridge National laboratory. it went to one of your own website pages. there is no inconsistency in my application of edit rules. cite the actual source, not your own webpage. citing your webpage is a conflict of interest. yes, it is a personal attack when you suggest an editor's motive is bias rather than basic wikipedia policy. please stop doing so. it is uncivil, and does not assume good faith - one of the pillars of wikipedia. thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My link went to the most-detailed source on the web about the DOE material, and it contains an embedded link to the ORNL.gov site, which has the high-level presentation outline. I was indeed selected by the U.S. DOE and ORNL as the person to prepare and present the popular international one-day workshop. I've been the most-popular speaker on the topic since the National Energy Expos three decades ago. I offer much more about the DOE/ORNL workshop material on my website than the government has published on theirs. My citation was accurate, true, and helpful to those who seek this government-sponsored material that you continuously attack with biased irrational impunity. Your biased undo attack History makes this point very clear for rational editors to clearly see. I invite and will appreciate other editor’s comments. Others have already undone some of your previous deletions of my generous, unbiased gifts to Wikipedia. When will you learn? Escientist (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

unfortunately you fail to address the issue of WP:COI, which has been pointed out to you numerous times. if your own material is noteworthy and useful, other editors will cite it. citing your own webpages is a conflict of interest. you cannot claim that material is from the DOE ORNL then link to your own site as the reference - it simply doesn't work that way.

i tire of being on the receiving end of your personal attacks. you routinely violate WP policy on civility. my "bias" such as it is, is for wikipedia to remain an encyclopedia, not a place where editors promote their own websites, and add commentary to articles without adding proper references per policy. the sad thing is how far removed from reality your claims of bias are. however, i will not lower myself to describing my own interest in energy conservation in response to your uncivil attacks. i will caution you again to cease your personal attacks on me. you are violating wikipedia policy in doing so. i do not relish having sanctions brought, but if these relentless attacks continue, i may be forced to. please stop. Anastrophe (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What you falsely call personal attacks, I perceive as defense agaist your documented indiscriminate deletion of my generous contributions without even reading the detail. It may be you who needs to be sanctioned. Documentation of your past and future edits will surely determine the answer. Surely I am not the only one you do this to. I accept that my style needs improvement, but shouldn't a good editor be somewhat helful? Escientist (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mini hydro versus micro hydro

This article contains an internal link to mini hydro, which does not exist. I changed it to micro hydro, which does exist, and a biased editor deleted my change. The list of irrational, biased Wikipedia editing grows every day. The source is clearly being attacked, not the content. Shall we file an WP:RFC as a group? Escientist (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

please sign your comments. you may do so by typing ~~~~ after them. to your comments, your edit was not merely as you represent it above - you were including unsourced commentary with the edit, along with a typo just for added measure. it was reverted because it was an addition of unsourced commentary. i overlooked the mini/micro issue. here's a link to the diff - it would be helpful if you would link to these specific complaints you have, as it would save other editors the redundant effort: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Future_energy_development&diff=next&oldid=181355018 Please feel free to file an RFC, though i'm not sure who the "we" are you refer to. Anastrophe (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've said many times before, you often throw out everything I enter, apparently just because it comes from me - a recognized subject matter expert who disagrees with much of your scientific misunderstand of the content. By your own admission, you don't take the time to read what you delete - you just indiscriminately block delete it with great self-assumed un-deserved authority, and no previous discussion of what you apparently don't even read or understand. I believe that this is more than worthy of a Request for Comment. If others agree, we should proceed. I would be surprised if I was the only one you are in conflict with. I invite and appreciate discussions about style, but not block deletion of everything I contribute. You refuse to show any common editorial courtesy. You block viewpoints that disagree with your's, for a motive that is not yet clear. You seem to have a very closed mind. What gives you the right to violate the Wikipedia Welcome credo? Escientist (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

okay, that's the last straw. i cannot continue to just allow these vile personal attacks to stand. Anastrophe (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the problem here is that Escientist fails to understand that where an edit contains something that ought to be reverted it is entirely normal to revert the whole edit, rather than try to separate the wheat from the chaff. Anastrophe was correct in his view that your unsourced commentary should be reverted. The change from mini to micro was done in the same edit, and was accordingly reverted. Mayalld (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biofuel main articles

In Energy development I added an internal link to Ethanol fuel Anastrophe deleted it and added one to

Main articles: Alcohol fuel, Biomass, Vegetable oil economy, vegetable oil as fuel, biodiesel, Ethanol fuel

That's OK - Fair enough - The message still gets through.

I essentially copied Anastrophe's main sources links into Future energy development and he irrationally deleted it (apparently because it came from me).

I've tried to negotiate with him offline with no success.

Does this make sense to anyone else? Am I the only one with this problem?

Others of you have reversed his deletions of my input. Escientist (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

it doesn't make sense to me either. it stood out because it was distinctly different from the other 'main article' tags. but i guess my frustration at being attacked at every turn has bled into routine edits. you're welcome to restore the edit, i shouldn't have reverted it. Anastrophe (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - Perhaps we can make some progress.

Before you block delete my generous work, please read the details, and let's discuss how "we" can make it better. I know my defense can seem offensive, but I want to share what the goverment has selected me to prepare. I admit I have a lot to learn about Wikipedia style, but I do know the science of what I write about, and the authoritative sources for it. Escientist (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear power section is too long - my suggestioins

1. the section needs to be split into fission energy and fusion energy
2. then the fusion section needs to be expanded to talk about ITER, and DEMO which is a (DEMOstration power plant) being built in japan, to demenstrate commercial viability, producing 2500MW, 1000MW(40% efficient) will be on sale. see http://www.pppl.gov/polImage.cfm?doc_Id=48&size_code=Doc
3. then nuclear power section will need to be split into it's own page my suggestion future energy development of nuclear power this will allow:

1)the fission section to be summarized, and merged into that page

2)create links with the already existing nuclear power

3)and have create a space where the information about the commercial aspects of fusion technology can go... since right now everythings experimental

Anyway that's my idea, tell me what you think... I won't be doing it myself, I'm currently busy with the Kardashev scale. THX--Sparkygravity (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)