Template talk:Future power plant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Energy Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
Template	This article has been rated as template-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within energy.

[edit] Image

Sources of electricity in the U.S. in 2006;[1] fossil fuel generation (mainly coal) was the largest source.

It is inappropriate to use an image of a coal plant. There are just too many places this template is used - wind farms, solar farms, nuclear power plants, the list goes on and on. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how it looks. The icon is here for a common sense of a power plant in the first sight, not to inquire its equality for other types of power plant. That way you're contradicting youself for using the image:Wind turbine blank.svg in the {{Renewable energy by country}}, that doesn't represent solar or geothermal energies as well. I cannot accept any kind of "needless to say" things for your double standard. I was actually expecting you would offer some sort of suggestion of the logo, but you intend to hide your WP identity (I assume you're no freshman here, otherwise there's no need to watch such templates for an anon.) With this I couldn't contact for your removal (leaving msg in IP user's talk page is fruitless in most case.) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does matter how it looks. It must convey the subject matter, which no generic icon can do. I see you have Chinese characters in your signature, so I assume that since China is building two coal plants a week and has the worst air pollution in the world you identify power plants with coal, but that is not true in the rest of the world. And no, I'm no freshman, I have been editing for at least a year, and have worked on hundreds of articles. And yes leaving messages on IP talk pages doesn't work very well. I always read the talk pages for any article I edit. However, you have not answered the message left on your talk page. Wind is by far the most dominant of all the renewable energies (hydro is not included on that template, as it is not an alternative energy), so a wind turbine is highly appropriate on that template. As an alternative to this coal plant, you could create an icon showing a wind turbine with a solar panel, similar to this photo (but without all the other things in the photo), as those are the two fastest growing energy technologies today. Coal and oil may be gone, well not gone, but no longer used at all, in 40 years, so using a coal plant icon for future power plants doesn't make any sense (outside of China). 199.125.109.98 (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You're showing a terrible attitude towards Chinese and trumping up some unjust excuse to justify yourself. Even US make use of large number of coal energy-generating and now you're calling my nation the worst air pollution in the world, what a ridiculous comparison!? I've never say it's a coal power plant, you're the only one commenting such. I see no reason the lower efficient wind and solar energies will dominate the world in any foreseeable future. But don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean coal is everlasting, because I DO NOT admit this icon a coal-only representative. Most mainstream power plant consist of steam turbine, making a chimney common sight amongst non-renewable energy power plants (coal, neclear, natural gas, biomass.) If you have special love for wind turbine, don't project that upon the common sense. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think most of these tags are being used on articles for new wind farms. And I just don't think the current image is appropriate. Better to have no image at all. Johnfos (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that new image looks good! Thank you... Johnfos (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I was just about to add that I agree with Johnfos that there is no way that an image could be found that would work on every type of power plant and yet you found one that does work. Good job. Coal, nuclear, natural gas are all going to be gone in 50 years (although right now all have power plants foolishly under construction). Nobody thinks that there is any point in making a biomass power plant (biomass is just horribly inefficient solar energy - less than 1% efficient, and often uses more energy than it produces, not to mention driving up food prices and contributing to deforestation and global warming). What's left? Wind, solar, hydro-storage, and geothermal. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 07:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)