User talk:Johnfos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm someone who tries to do the right thing, so if I have slipped up with my editing, just let me know. Please note that I maintain this page by removing messages which are over one month old. (Standard bot-type messages are usually removed more quickly)...


Contents

[edit] Invitation to participate in a discussion Food vs biofuel debate

Hi John. Would you be so kind to visit Talk:Food vs fuel and give us your experienced opinion on that discussion. We need more editors to give their opinions on the proposed article's name change. Mariordo (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, have replied on the article Talk page... Johnfos (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sounding like an ad

Hi. Can you please tell us which part(s) of the SPREE page seem like an ad? Thanks. UNSW Alumni Assoc (talk) 10:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied on article Talk page... Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 10:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jevons Paradox

Hi there,

I'ld like to discuss your edits to Jevons paradox and Efficient energy use.

To make sure that we are on the same page, let me clarify something about Jevons paradox and energy use (the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate).

The first, more obvious interpretation of the Jevons paradox is that the rebound effect (lower cost leads to increased demand) for a market is more than 100%. This rarely happens, and most researchers agree that the rebound effect, especially in developed markets is much less than 100%.

However, in the particular case of energy use, better technology leads to faster economic growth. Energy costs have a large impact on economic growth rates. In the 1970's higher petroleum prices led to stagflation, in the 1990's lower petroleum prices led to higher growth. An improvement in energy efficiency has the same effect as lower fuel prices, and leads to faster economic growth. Economists believe that for the particular case of energy use, more efficient technologies lead to increased use, because of this second effect.

I feel that the edits that you recently made to Jevons paradox and Efficient energy use need to be modified with this in mind. The examples you give all have to do with the first effect, the rebound effect, being less than 100%. However, it is because of the second effect (higher economic growth leads to more energy use) that more energy efficient technologies lead to increased energy use. The examples you give do not address this.

When you look at the energy use of the periods you cite, between 1980 and the year 2000. Total energy use in the US increased, even as energy efficiency improved. In fact, when you look at recorded history, in ALL cases when there was technological innovation and increased efficiency in energy use, this has always led to INCREASED total energy use.

lk (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi Lawrence, and thanks for those helpful comments. I think I learned more from them than I did from the Jevons paradox page!

You will gather that I am not an economist. My perspective is basically that of an energy policy analyst who believes that there are certain social, political and environmental benefits in commercializing renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.

In terms of energy efficiency, I see California as a classic success story:

California has a long, successful history of using energy efficiency to reduce demand for energy and peak electricity system loads, which reduces energy costs.

  • Since 1975, California’s building and appliance standards have reduced energy costs for individuals and businesses in California by $56 billion. These standards are expected to save another $23 billion by 2013.
  • Because of its energy efficiency standards and program investments, electricity use per person in California has remained relatively stable over the past 30 years, while nationwide electricity use has increased by almost 50 percent (see Figure 1).[1]

So I guess we are operating in different paradigms, which is always a challenge. But I am certainly willing to listen to what you say and discuss things. Perhaps you would care to make contact via e-mail? regards, Johnfos (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess the Jevons paradox page needs further editing, if my muddle headed writing conveys more information than the article (!). I'll try to get around to it sometime this weekend. Do you mind if I significantly edit your contributions as well?
Just to let you know where I'm coming from, I consider myself an environmentalist, I use compact fluorescent bulbs exclusively. However, as an economist, I'm pretty sure that more efficient technology alone cannot save us. As a society we need to make the tough choices; we must heavily tax energy use and tax activities that degrade the environment. Legislation mandating particular technologies are not as efficient and have only limited benefits. Although I do understand that they may be politically more feasible. lk (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for that. I use CFLs as well. But I certainly agree that there is no one silver bullet that is going to save us. I have to admit I have been particularly impressed with the work of Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute with regards to energy efficiency. Amory has done lots of consulting with some very large companies. Kind of interesting: very much a market-based approach which doesn't advocate government intervention.

I was hoping to get a comment from you on the Californian situation please, in relation to your statement that "when you look at recorded history, in ALL cases when there was technological innovation and increased efficiency in energy use, this has always led to INCREASED total energy use." This doesn't seem to be the case in California:

Because of its energy efficiency standards and program investments, electricity use per person in California has remained relatively stable over the past 30 years, while nationwide electricity use has increased by almost 50 percent (see Figure 1).[2]
I am not familiar with what happened in California, but I would guess that there has been legislation (taxes, subsidies, quotas and/or mandates) that held down energy use. I'm all in favor of that. I would stand by my statement, that for a society, technological improvements in efficiency has always led to (causes) increased energy use. This doesn't mean that technological progress and reduced energy use cannot occur at the same time. For this to happen though, something else must be reducing energy use. E.g. a rise in fuel prices, taxes on fuel use, other legislative actions (quotas, subsidies, etc).
However, there are some 'green' technologies that only disguise but do not reduce energy use. E.g. until recently, solar cells required more energy to manufacture than they could generate over their lifetimes. A person that installed a bank of solar cells could claim that he had reduced energy use, since his electric bill has gone down. In reality, he paid his energy bill when he bought the solar cells. The cost of the solar cells paid for the energy used in their manufacture. (Roughly speaking, the price of a good reflects the energy used in its manufacture.) It may be that part of California's energy conservation was paid for by increased energy use in other states. ie. they only displaced energy use. lk (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You would have noticed that I've removed my recent edits from Jevons paradox, as I'm really not trying to push a POV. I'm more interested in our discussion here at the moment, and hope that it may lead to something to include on the page. Johnfos (talk) 04:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to remove your edits, I think they make a positive contribution. I just hope the page reflects what I believe is mainstream economics about the issue. That technological improvements in efficiency are useful, but to achieve energy conservation, there must be some legislation (preferably a use tax), that reduces use. Improvements in efficiency help reduce the adverse impact on living standards from reduced use, and may make restrictions on use more palatable. lk (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, I'm not trying to be difficult, but would like to ask again please for your comments on the Californian energy efficiency situation and how it fits in with Jevons theories. Not sure that I can sensibly continue the discussion without this info. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Renewable energy organizations question

Hi Johnfos

What do you think about breaking up the list into sections by resource type - Geo, solar, wind, plus a generic RE section? I know the PV and Solar energy pages have organization lists that could be pulled out but wind, geo and tidal don't yet. Just a thought. Mrshaba (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mrshaba, yep, that sounds good. Nice to see you editing again... Johnfos (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Johnfos... I've got some time off is all. I'd like to see the solar energy page get up to FA. I've put it up for peer review but no luck with recommendations so far. Any suggestions on helping expand its review? My other thought is to let the page cool off for a week and put it to the League of Copyeditors.
Anyways, I'll do an initial break up of the RE list as discussed above. Mrshaba (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I took an initial whack at the List of renewable energy organizations. I arbitrarily used two groups (Associations and Research institutions) and divided the bullets between RE, Solar, Hydro and Wind. There's still some external link formatting to do but it's a good rough draft. I left PV off the list for now but will post a note on the talk page. Mrshaba (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
With regards to Solar energy: I think the lead could do with a rewrite to better comply with WP:Lead. It needs to provide a summary of the article. I think the old Solar Two image at the start of the article could go too; why not replace it with a nice bright PS10 solar power tower image? Also, you might seek assistance from WP:FA Team... Johnfos (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The intro and lead picture have been painful issues. I've removed the old Solar Two picture a few times but it keeps returning. If it's not Solar Two it's a crude box picture. It's very easy to change pictures you see... This has frustrated me because you can make a good page look bad with a few hokey pictures. I've tried to work it out on the talk page, gone through RFCs and all that but no luck yet. I'd like a glowing picture of the Sun and something new like PS10... From space to Earth so to speak. I'd also like to add onto the second paragraph to be more inclusive of the technologies on the page. Possibly add a fourth paragraph to cover everything. I agree with your suggestions. I have avoided these changes because they've attracted negative attention but maybe it's time to give the intro another try. Thank you for the FA Team suggestion. I'll check it out. Mrshaba (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you take a quick look at the updated intro/picture on the solar energy page and give me your take? Thanks. Mrshaba (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Definite improvement! Nice bright photo that captures the imagination and a lead that provides the "bigger picture". Good work. Johnfos (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The intro/picture saga continues on the solar energy page. This disruption has been going on for about a year now and I've noticed there are many other energy pages dealing with this IP - Hydrogen, Electric car, Nuclear and Wind power. Any advice? Mrshaba (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would refer you to User:Anthony Appleyard, who is an administrator. Please see my recent entry on his talk page... Johnfos (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you much. Mrshaba (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Anthony, for progressing this matter. If you think I can be of some further assistance, please let me know... Johnfos (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Effects of global warming on Australia updated

Hi John, just noting that the page has been updated by Amberclaire and the changes explained on the talk page. Cheers dinghy (talk) 08:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Against unconsulted article's name change

Would you go to the Talk page of the article the same user changed the name to Food crisis without any consultarion. Mariordo (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, have replied on article Talk page... Johnfos (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt reply. Perhaps is something idiomatic, the expression "I am happy" confused me, so I did not understand clearly what you do mean. Do you want to keep the new name food price crisis or are you in favor in reversing to the old name 2007–2008 world food price crisis. My proposal is to come back to the old name because the article's content refers exclusively to the 2007-08 crisis and there might be others in the future. Sorry to insist. Mariordo (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC).
Happy to clarify: I don't see the name change as a big issue, but (like you) would prefer the old name... so please go ahead and change the name back... thanks Johnfos (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, someone else already did it. Mariordo (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear terrorism

Hi, you reverted a bunch of my edits to the nuclear terrorism article. In talk you just said you were following Biophys and restoring deleted material that was sourced, but you also deleted sourced material yourself, and you restored a grammatical error I had corrected. It is true I had deleted stuff but I deleted it because it said nothing about nuclear terrorism -- can you please address this issue in talk? In one of the sections I had deleted, I had posted a note requesting evidence of a connection to nuclear terrorism about 6 months ago and still nobody has done so. csloat (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for making contact. Happy to discuss on the article Talk page... Johnfos (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Then please do so; it would be great. Commenting about other users (e.g. "please calm down") really doesn't cut it. If you refuse to defend your edits, please revert them. Thanks. csloat (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mandatory renewable energy targets copy vio fixed on subpage - please delete tag and promote subpage.

Hi Johnfos. I have provided a replacement page for Mandatory renewable energy targets by way of a subpage Mandatory_renewable_energy_targets/Fixed_copyvio - please promote subpage to article page Mandatory_renewable_energy_targets. Sorry about the hassle - you are just far too quick for me! dinghy (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean Phanly: you do seem very slow sometimes :) But I think we will need to wait for an administrator to look at the situation now; which should be a few days away.
What I would suggest in the future is drafting new articles in a WP:Sandbox page, and working on them there, until they are good enough to go to mainspace. Johnfos (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I see you are using a Sandbox page. I don't know what else to suggest, but the quality of your articles which are being loaded to mainspace definitely needs to be improved... Johnfos (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


Hello, Johnfos. You have new messages at Anthony Appleyard's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

[edit] Renewable energy commercialisation in Australia

Replied on Anthony's Talk page. Johnfos (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
1980 was my year for seeing southern constellations (but without a telescope!). I spent that year travelling around Australia in my 4WD, on a working holiday, camping out most nights. Johnfos (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gluaiseacht and Notability

I have removed the Wikipedia:Notability tag from the Gluaiseacht article because of references from two prominent irish newspapers higlighted in Talk:Gluaiseacht. Is this ok with you and I understanding the Wikipedia:Notability policy properly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrchris (talk • contribs) 17:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, looks better now. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear power article

The nuclear power article has been subject to persistent vandalism and POV pushing over the past year or so. As such, we typically discuss larger edits on the talk page. The consensus is that sources must be both reliable per WP:RS and neutral in tone. It is also the consensus that this article be about what nuclear power is rather than what it is not. Material about renewables, conservation, nation specific information e.g. US focused, and general electric generation is not relevant for this article. I take issue with your addition of information regarding intermittent capacity issues, and vulnerabilities of transmissions systems. The way you have applied this information to the nuclear power article introduces a biased POV.

The statements about reserve "spinning" capacity, though true, are more relevant to an article about how electric transmission works. Further, the statements imply that this is an issue particular to nuclear power and not the industry at-large. This is an unfair slight of hand.

The statements about grid vulnerability and the "need" for distribution is irrelevant to an article on what commercial nuclear power generation is. This is POV and will be removed.

Based on your user page and edits I assume you could be described as anti-nuclear. I understand your position, though I disagree with it, but please keep in mind that wikipedia is not a PR forum. It is an encyclopedia which is supposed to be reliable and neutral. Please keep discussion as to alternatives to nuclear power and debate regarding its usefulness to separate articles.

I do not want to get into a revert war with you regarding these issues. Please remember that WP:NPOV is about writing an article such that it doesn't contain any particular POV. It is not about cramming it with POV from every side of an issue so that they somehow "balance" each other. Please discuss further NPOV edits on the article talk page. I don't mean to threaten, but if you choose to engage in a combative war of words and edits on this, I will not hesitate to involve administrators. Best regards. Lwnf360 (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Roach

Nice work on the Michael Roach article. I think your constructive edits are moving the controversial aspects of the subject to WP:NPOV. Kudos. -Vritti (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Enjoyed reading your user page... Johnfos (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

An WP:NPOV article would include the contextualization of the controversy within the wider practice of Tibetan Buddhism, which is hardly monolithic in its views. Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Operating cost was half that of coal 25 years ago, I guess that's irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red1001802 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good articles newsletter

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)