Talk:Renewable energy/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

The Great Nuclear Debate

Nuclear technology

I've removed this article from Category:Nuclear technology, because as it reads it definitely excludes nuke.

Personally, my POV is that nuke should be considered renewable, because the timescale in which we run out of fuel is so long that it might as well be infinite, and in time (thousands of years, not tens of thousands as some seem to think) the waste decays to be less radioactive than the ore bodies were.

On that basis, if you need to divide energy sources into two classes according to whether they can be the basis of sustainable long-term development, nuke is definitely in the yes basket, in fact it's the only technology that's proven in large-scale use and that can claim this.

But that's not the way the article currently reads, and I see little chance of putting it in as any sort of encyclopedic statement. So I've taken it out of the category. Andrewa 02:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I put the category back in. The article talks about nuclear under ==The nuclear "renewable" claim==, which is sufficient cause to include the category, IMHO. I think the first paragraph where it claims that Nuclear uses limited natural resources is POV, but I hesitate to open that bag of worms. pstudier 21:01, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

Yes, that's a valid point. I was hoping anyone who did put the category back in would also have a go at rewriting this section as well as the introduction.
The can of worms won't go away. At present this section is not as bad as many I've seen. But it does for example raise the arguments of nuclear proliferation, which has nothing to do with whether the technology is renewable in the technical sense, and accidents, where there's a slightly better connection but not much. But renewable also has a political sense, and this is what this section discusses, focussing on what most advocates of renewable energy think and ignoring the logical problem that if nuclear power is renewable (in the technical sense), then its advocates are also renewable energy advocates (in every sense)! So it's blatantly POV. My problem is I'm not sure I can do a lot better, I don't want to go from one extreme to the other. I might have a go when I feel strong. Andrewa 21:52, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree. The problem is that the literal meaning of the word renewable does not adequately describe what is really meant when people use the term renewable energy. Perhaps this article should be renamed ==Alternative Energy== and the definition should be "Alternative energy is energy from a source which can be managed so that it is not subject to depletion over many human generations, and causes minimal pollution and other damage to the environment." We will still have the controversy of whether this includes Nuclear, but I think that is OK. pstudier 23:15, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
How about a new article at sustainable energy? This is currently a redir to renewable energy, and has a short but colourful history, starting life recently as a website advertisement. It is clearer as to what it meant by sustainable energy than by renewable energy, and as you say they are often used as synonyms (as the redirect suggests). Alternative energy, on the other hand, is an even vaguer term (and also a redir to renewable energy at present). Andrewa 18:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't think using sustainable energy solves the problem. Burning dung for heating and cooking, which kills many people with indoor air pollution, is renewable and sustainable. However, I don't think that it is the type of energy most advocates of "renewable energy" would favor. pstudier 20:01, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

I just removed the section that asked the question "is nuclear technology renewable", the answer is clearly no. Radiation from an accident is obviously not renewable, generating non bio degradable waste is obviously not renewable. zen master T 00:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I put it back in. Nuclear can be sustained for over a billion years. On human time scales of many generations it can be buried. In a short time geologically, the net effect of nuclear technology is to reduce the total amount of radioactivity on the earth. You may disagree with me here, but you must at least acknowledge the other side in this controversy. pstudier 00:45, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

I am afraid I removed it again. No generally accepted definition of renewable is going to allow nuclear to be included, it is simply fact, sorry. What is renewable about radiation (from an accident or from waste)? It's not about sides, it's about not allowing a sneaky new definition of the word "renewable". zen master T 00:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. From the current revision of the article "Renewable energy is energy from a source which can be managed so that it is not subject to depletion in a human timescale." Nowhere does this even mention pollution, or other damage to humans. The definition only mentions depletion. Would you care to rewrite the definition to clarify what is the "generally accepted definition of renewable"? pstudier 00:57, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

The current definition we use in the article is lacking yes, I will clean that up when I remove nuclear again. Dictionary.com defines renewable as, "#2 Relating to or being a commodity or resource, such as solar energy or firewood, that is inexhaustible or replaceable by new growth." zen master T 01:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merriam Webster had even better definitions:
  1. capable of being renewed <renewable contracts>
  2. capable of being replaced by natural ecological cycles or sound management practices <renewable resources>
zen master T 01:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Most of this section that you insist on deleting has been included since the end of May, 2004. Please leave the {{disputed}} tag in the article. pstudier 01:55, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

Well, with the seemingly suspicious push for an "energy development" wiki project I thought it was important to get things like the definition of "renewable" in line with accuracy. What exactly is disputed? Are you saying info on nuclear should be included eventhough it doesn't jive with the definition of renewable? We can add a short two sentence blurb about how some claim nuclear is renewable but that it does not fit within any commonly accepted definition -- nuclear certainly doesn't deserve it's own section and shouldn't have been a bullet pointed list anyway. zen master T 02:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


What is disputed?

Is there really a dispute over whether the section on nuclear should be included? I think I've shown nuclear does not fit any commonly accepted definition of renewable, if people want to mention the controversy we can add a two sentence blurb about nuclear but also note the fact it does not fit any commonly accepted definition of renewable. What do people think?

Also, why do the most recently developed templates (such as {disputed}) seem to waste a lot of whitespace above and below them, can that be fixed? zen master T 18:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that nuclear energy is not renewable by definition. I fail to see the logic of putting the disputed tag on this article. Sunray 23:36, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

The up to date definition from the article is "Renewable energy is energy from a source that it is not subject to depletion. Sources include solar power, wind power, tidal power, hydroelectric, biomass, and geothermal. Renewable energy does not include sources which are irreplaceable through natural ecological processes on a human timescale such as fossil fuels and nuclear fission power." According to the reference in the deleted section [1], when the terrestrial uranium is used up, then uranium could be economically from the ocean. Rivers will renew this ocean uranium at the rate of 32,000 tonnes per year. By this definition, there is no question that nuclear energy is renewable. As a concession, I will put in the language "Is nuclear renewable?" rather than just listing it as a source. pstudier

By definition uranium and/or anything radioactive is not considered a natural ecological process, nice try though. Renew means nature can restore it to as it was before -- just because sea water might bring you more uranium doesn't mean that anything is being renewed in the process. zen master T 07:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Renewable energy is energy from a source that it is not subject to depletion."
On what time scale? Solar energy is subject to depletion, too. As far as human-scale activities are concerned, I'd say nuclear is renewable by this definition.
This isn't about "natural, wholesome" energy; it's about renewable energy. Besides, you'd then have to define where on the scale of perspective "natural" falls, as well. Radiation from solar fusion is natural, but radiation from man-made fusion would not be? - Omegatron 15:43, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Your definition is flat out inaccurate. Check the definition currently used in the article. It's not about whether a resource is subject to depletion or timescale it is a matter of being renewable through ecological processes, e.g. life giving processes. Renewable is indeed about "natural, wholesome" energy, look at the definitions I cited above. Man made radiation is unnatural, it creates ecologically harmful waste, and would destroy an environment if an accident were to occur. zen master T 16:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That's not my definition, it's the definition in the article. Nuclear energy is sustainable for millions of years; solar energy is sustainable for billions. Both will be depleted eventually. So it certainly is about timescales, perspectives, and bias. - Omegatron 17:48, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
You either haven't looked at the article recently or missed the definition clarification sentence: "Renewable energy does not include sources which are irreplaceable through natural ecological processes on a human timescale such as fossil fuels and nuclear fission power." Nuclear power is not sustainable ecologically so therefore it is not renewable. Perhaps we should clean up the first sentence definition so you no longer have a basis for confusion. zen master T 17:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
To Omegatron, solar energy is not depleted by human activities. Yes, it will eventually run out, but it would do so regardless of human activity. While nuclear energy will not be depleted within a human timescale, the process of producing nuclear energy entails extracting radioactive materials from the environment and results in a by-product which cannot be returned to the environment without extensive safeguards. older≠wiser 18:10, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
The new definition is better, but if solar energy is "natural" then nuclear decay can be considered natural, too. If you say "nuclear power requires accelerated decay (and it does not, necessarily), which is not natural", then I can say "solar power requires solar panels, which are certainly not natural". Then you could say "nuclear energy produces harmful byproducts that harm the environment", and I could say "the construction of solar panels pollutes the environment and the widespread use of solar panels (enough to replace current power demands) would have unknown consequences on the ecological cycles and weather of the planet, considering they would cover huge areas of land, preventing light from reaching vegetation and changing the reflective, temperature properties of the region", and back and forth, etc. etc. etc. All I'm really saying is that the line between natural and unnatural is not so clearly defined. - Omegatron 18:47, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Also, nuclear energy is "stored solar energy", too. :-) - Omegatron 18:48, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Is this the only thing that's disputed? It seems we just need to add a section on the aspects of nuclear power that make it a renewable source in some people's minds but not in others and remove the tag. - Omegatron 18:52, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Definitions of words like renewable aren't as easily disputable in my mind. Nuclear energy is stored in a form that is unecological. Note: I edited a new new definition, you may have missed that. The general section that was already in the article agreed with the no nuclear definition, I consolidated that into the intro. See the section below for proposed blurb on nuclear. zen master T 18:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's not your personal article. It needs to contain a definition of renewable that everyone can agree with, not just you. A blurb on nuclear power and why it's not considered renewable is good by me. It should be in the first paragraph. - Omegatron 19:54, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

proposed blurb on nuclear

Because radiation is not a natural ecological process and because radioactive material is not renewed ecologically they are not included in this article, please see nuclear power for more information.

What do people think? zen master T 07:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your second word, 'radiation' is off the mark in this context, I think, unfortunately. It is 'radiation-induced nuclear fision' or 'accelerated nuclear decay' that is the unnatural aspect of nuclear power generation. Trouble is that those phrases, while more accurate, are less accessible and less likely to be understood by the average reader of this article. It's hard to shorten them as both 'fision' and 'decay' describe a "natural" nuclear process (i.e. it's always gone on, without the help of man). I'll keep thinking. Can anyone else help here? Nigelj 17:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
How about substituting the term nuclear fision for the word radiation? Sunray 19:46, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

At this moment, the definition is "Renewable energy includes all sources of energy that are regenerable through natural or organic processes...". If rivers flowing to the sea replenishing the uranium in the ocean is not "natural", then hydroelectric power is not either. In addition, all the reservoirs will eventually silt up, so hydroelectric is only useable for a few hundred years. Shall we remove hydroelectric? pstudier 22:01, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Hydroelectric is not dependent on extracting minerals and does not produce by-products that cannot be returned to the environment without special handling. I think the point is that it is rather uncommon for nuclear energy to be included as a type of renewable energy. For example, even the World Nuclear Association, a nuclear energy advocacy group, explicitly contrasts nuclear energy with renewable energy. [2]. Can you provide any reputable sources that explicitly include nuclear energy as a type of renewable energy. older≠wiser 22:18, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
I follow the definition in the article, which does not mention extracting minerals, disposal of by-products, or pollution. In any case hydroelectric is made out of concrete and steel, which is made from stone, iron ore, and coal. Their production generates various wastes and pollution. pstudier 22:46, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
You're taking the argument to a rather perverse extreme. I repeat, can you provide any credible, verifiable sources that explicitly describe nuclear energy as renewable? In a way, I don't really have that strong of an objection to including a section that addresses why nuclear is not commonly considered to be a renewable energy. But as it is, the section uses a weaselly "Some nuclear advocates claim that nuclear energy should be regarded as renewable energy" without any indication of who those advocates are. Just who is it that make such claims? older≠wiser 23:00, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Patrick Moore, who was president of Greenpeace from 1977 to 1979, advocates nuclear power [3]. James Lovelock, who invented the Gaia theory, advocates nuclear power. It doesn't seem extreme to me to include nuclear power as Environmentally friendly. pstudier 23:32, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
The question is not whether some people advocate nuclear energy as being environmentally responsible, but whether they consider it to be a type of renewable energy. Renewable energy is not synonymous with environmentally responsible energy sources. Even the source that you cite explicitly contrasts nuclear energy with renewable energy rather than including it as another type of renewable energy. older≠wiser 23:51, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Now you have confused me. Earlier today you stated Hydroelectric is not dependent on extracting minerals and does not produce by-products that cannot be returned to the environment without special handling. So you included environmental criteria other than just whether it is replenished. That is why I added the section Definition of renewable. I suspect that most people actually think of environmental impacts when they say renewable. If so, then it should be added to the definition. pstudier 00:19, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
You're avoiding the issue by changing the subject. Can you provide any citations from reputable sources that claim nuclear energy is a form of renewable energy? older≠wiser 02:36, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
I claim it based on the current definition in the article. If nuclear is not generally considered renewable, then the article's definition is somehow deficient. I am unable to discern what you really mean by renewable. There is more to the meaning than is stated in the article. pstudier 03:07, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
You're being deliberately obtuse. The definition provided here is not significantly different than that used in most other sources, and yet you fail to provide even a single credible source that uses such a definition and also explicitly includes nuclear energy as a type of renewable energy. older≠wiser 03:17, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Again, Uranium is not replenished ecologically or naturally and there is a net loss of resources, there is no cycle of replenishment. Hydroelectric power comes from rain (ultimately the sun) so is a natural ecological process. In the 1970s people did not know as much about the harmful effects of both radiation and nuclear waste, we do now. Greenpeace guy advocating nuclear does not mean the word renewable suddenly morphs into your definition. Please note and comment on the proposed blurb about nuclear specifically, I don't think it unreasonble to require any mention of nuclear to include the fact it does not fit within any commonly accepted definition of renewable (but we can mention it with a blurb). Also, a bullet pointed list is not a good idea either. zen master T 00:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about:
Nuclear power generation is not based on any natural or ecological process and radioactive material is not renewed by any ecological cycle. For these reasons, nuclear power not included in this article, please see nuclear power for more information about its benefits and disadvantages. Nigelj 00:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. zen master T 00:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
How are rivers flowing to the ocean not a natural process? Is this not the same process which powers hydroelectric? pstudier 03:07, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
That is an organic cyclical process yes, with uranium there is no cycle of replenishment as there is steadily less and less uranium. There IS a finite amount of uranium on earth despite your insistence that sea water "replenishes" uranium, is a mine replenished if a lava flow fills it back up with uranium? (I don't think so, you need to look at the earth as a whole, it's a finite shpere). I am amazed at your one trick pony debate style. You fail to note the changed definition in the article and you keep harping on the same stuff (without actually debating anything), you do not seem to debate how a human being would. Please engage others in debate rather than just trying to trick people into letting you do what you want by mis-framing the debate with errant definitions. It also seems like you are performing some sort of test. zen master T 04:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you look at the solar system as a whole, then solar power is not renewable. It comes from nuclear fusion on the sun, which consumes hydrogen and produces helium. Eventually the sun will run out of helium, but only after several billion years. pstudier 21:59, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

Definition of renewable

Should the definition of Renewable include impacts on the environment? pstudier 23:32, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Yes and no. Uranium is not replenished, just because you get more of it does NOT mean anything is being replenished through a natural ecological process. zen master T 00:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What exactly is disputed?

I don't understand which part of the article remains in dispute. Can we clarify exactly which part, so we can fix it quickly? - Omegatron 19:45, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I believe pstudier disputed the removal of the lengthy nuclear section from the article but has yet to actually discuss the replacement blurb, he just kept insisting on an alternative definition of renewable. I would support the removal of the disputed header though I don't think it's that big a deal if it stays on an article when there is a chance there is a dispute. I do have a small problem with the disputed header in that it wastes white space above and below it seemingly, on my linux firefox browser anyway. zen master T 20:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't like it because it gives the impression that the entire article is disputed. Let's get it fixed quickly. - Omegatron 20:52, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
Both by the latest and the old definition of renewable, nuclear is clearly renewable. I admit that most people would not think of nuclear as renewable. Please forgive my repetition on this, but the definition should be sufficient to classify energy sources as renewable or not. Zen master refuses to even allow the article to suggest that nuclear could possibly be considered renewable. Is the exclusion of nuclear just arbitrary? If so, that is OK, but it should be part of the definition at the beginning of the article. pstudier 22:08, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

Pstudier, I am trying to understand why you cling to the notion that nuclear power is renewable. You said:

"...when the terrestrial uranium is used up, then uranium could be economically from the ocean. Rivers will renew this ocean uranium at the rate of 32,000 tonnes per year. By this definition, there is no question that nuclear energy is renewable.

But rivers do not "create" uranium. The article you refer to [4] sets out Cohen's views that uranium is going to be around for a very long time. The core logic of the article is the following:

"Cohen calculates that we could take 16,000 tonne per year of uranium from seawater, which would supply 25 times the world's present electricity usage and twice the world's present total energy consumption. He argues that given the geological cycles of erosion, subduction and uplift, the supply would last for 5 billion years with a withdrawal rate of 6,500 tonne per year.

I cannot see how this is sustainable. Using Cohen's calculation, 8,000 tonnes are required to supply the world's present total energy consumption. Energy consumption is increasing exponentially.

However, as one of the notes to the article states: "Cohen neglects decay of the uranium. Since uranium has a half-life of 4.46 billion years, about half will have decayed by his postulated 5 billion years." The point is that, while nuclear fuel will be around for a long, long time, it is not renewable. There is no natural process that will renew uranium and, using Cohen's own calculations, if used to supply energy, uranium reserves will expire long before the sun burns out. Sunray 23:50, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

Can a suitable definition end the fruitless "nuclear" dispute?

As a work of reference, Wikipedia should go along with the most general oppinion - that nuclear is not renewable. I hope that the definition offered Feb 2nd 2005 makes a step in this direction. The section "is nuclear renewable" should remain, possibly expanded, in memory of the great dispute.

If there is no other dispute about the article, let us move to the next task: make the article more manageable, down to the recommended 32 kB (now over 53). I propose that at least "use of RES by nations" and "RES support" is moved to their own articles. MGTom 00:21, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

"A common definition of renewable is something inexhaustible. ("Relating to or being a commodity or resource, such as solar energy or firewood, that is inexhaustible or replaceable by new growth.") Since nuclear power is effectively inexhaustible (it would last for n (m/b)illion years, in which we would surely discover other sources of power, like nuclear fusion), some consider it to be a "renewable" source of energy. However, it is not considered a renewable resource by the general population since it will eventually be used up, and then can only be replenished by the forces that exist inside a star, and not by the cycles that occur on Earth." Something like that.
I agree the section should definitely stay, in spite of zen master's hopeless bias, and I agree that we should trim the article into smaller articles. Your recommmendations look good to me. - Omegatron 03:26, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Other definitions explicitly require natural cycles, such as Webster's:
Main Entry: re·new·able
Pronunciation: -'nü-&-b&l, -'nyü-
Function: adjective
Date: 1727
1 : capable of being renewed <renewable contracts>
2 : capable of being replaced by natural ecological cycles or sound management practices <renewable resources>
We may propose both a most common definition and "expanded" (Include nuclear) and "contracted" (Gold Standard only) MGTom 18:07, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

I am biased but my edits to acticles strive not to be. I have no problem with the size of the current nuclear section except for the implication nuclear fits any definition of renewable. The point of putting renewable before energy is to stress the "green" benefits of it, otherwise it would all just be called "energy". Perhaps some of the confusion springs from the desire to stress nuclear as an alternative to fossil fuels, we should add that point to the article perhaps. Pstudier seems to keep harping that nuclear is renewable or uranium is replenished by rivers, can we work towards consensus on those points? or am I alone in that perception? zen master T 21:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If renewable before energy is to stress the "green", then it should be included in the the definition. Of course this would open the question as to whether burning biomass is renewable because this pollutes. If renewable does not imply green, then you can not exclude nuclear power because of its environmental effects. pstudier 22:53, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
As far as biomass goes scientists now look at the "closed carbon loop" to take into consideration the effect of pollution on renewability. [5] [6]. I assumed green was already included in the definition of renewable :-) Why put renewable before energy otherwise? I was not excluding nuclear just because of its environmental effects, I exclude it because it is neither cyclical nor an ecological process. Though, it could be argued technically, to fit with definition #2 above, that generating significant electricity from nuclear power is an unsound management practice, especially when the risk of accidental radiation leakage is considered. zen master T 23:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
CLEARLY, opinions differ. Some think of renewable as "won't run out the way oil does" (more accurately termed sustainable energy), and others see renewable as meaning "ecological, mother earth-derived" (more accurately termed green energy). "Renewable" is just a more popular term that tends to include members of both. Since this is Wikipedia, we need a definition that everyone can agree with, which, simply, will say "some people think it means this and some people think it means that". - Omegatron 00:22, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
I support the current nuclear section that mentions the alternative definition, but shouldn't the article convey the fact that the most commonly accepted definition in the context of renewable energy is "ecological cycle", do you disagree? I recall another poster on this talk page asking for citations that use renewable in such a way where nuclear would be included. I think proponents of the "Is nuclear renewable?" section should be asked to provide citations so we can analyze specifics. Who exactly is saying or proposing that nuclear is renewable? zen master T 12:10, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

wrong word "replenished" in Is nuclear renewable? section

I don't think "replenished" is the most appropriate word in the Is nuclear renewable section. Replenish implies a life giving process, when really erosion through rain and rivers is just bringing more traces of uranium downstream. What do people think? zen master T 21:28, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No it doesn't. "Replenish" is a simple word meaning "to fill up again". Why are you so opposed to this? I think it's perfectly neutral and accurate the way it is. - Omegatron 21:53, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
I am not advocating the removal of the is nuclear renewable section, I just think we should simply say "fill up again" directly to avoid confusion because there are definitions of replenished that mean "nourish". Also, we DO need to state exactly who is advocating that nuclear be considered renewable, so someone needs to do some citing... And, we should also add a caveat that nuclear is not considered renewable by the commonly accepted definition, scientific journals should be cited on this point. zen master T 22:11, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As things seem to stand (I have no direct reference) replenish is even less pro-nuclear than reality. Actually, uranium concentration is most probably building up in seawater. On the Earth the original location of uranium (as all heavy atoms) is in the igneous rocks. Igneous rocks are not the best ores though. Good, high concentration ores are sedimentary, i.e. again a product of leaching, transport and deposition. So replenish is not the most exact word. Would building up be better?
To try for some Wiki benefit I added some wording to the uranium article:
At the height of the nuclear energy euphoria in the 1950 methods for extracting diluted uranium and thorium found in abundance in granite or seawater was pursued (ORNL Review). Used in a breeder reactor these materials would potentially provide limitless source of energy.
(former text:)Military requirements declined in the 1960s, and the government completed its uranium procurement program by the end of 1970. Simultaneously, a new market emerged - commercial nuclear power plants. (added by MGTom:) In turn this market virtually collapsed in the early 1980s, after the Three Mile Island nuclear accident.MGTom 23:30, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

US President Bush calls nuclear renewable. [7] pstudier 23:47, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

And he pronounces it "nu-cu-ler" Sunray 06:14, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
That is actually a very telling and a good quotation Pstudier, though perhaps not how you meant it, I think we should put bush's statement contrasted with the sierra club president's into the article:
Most people's idea of renewable energy is not anything that produces toxic wastes that you have to keep isolated for hundreds of thousands of years. It is absolutely flabbergasting that they would try to revive this technology --Carl Pope, President of the Sierra Club.
And we should additionally caveat it with fact that 100s of concerned scientists have signed a letter that charges the bush administration with ignoring scientific research. Also, any inclusion of nuclear as renewable ignores the damage caused by a single accident involving radiation leakage. It almost seems like there may be a big push for additional nuclear power in a few years, proponents of such things, instead of trying to co-opt the word renewable to include nuclear, should just try to convince people nuclear power is safe (perhaps an untenable position). Zen master

If you think "replenished" simply means "to fill up again" then why isn't "refilled" a better word choice? zen master T 02:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but "refilled" sounds like filling up a cup or a tank of gas that has been completely emptied. Refilled just means "To fill again." Replenish is "To fill or make complete again; add a new stock or supply to.", which is more like what it is doing. It's not filling the ocean basin full of uranium. It's adding to the amount that's already there; adding a new supply of uranium to the water in the ocean. It's just a more accurate connotation. Why don't you like it? - Omegatron 03:04, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Because it errantly implies a natural cyclical process for Uranium. zen master T 03:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's a natural non-cyclic process, but I don't think replenished gives any impression of cyclicness that refilled does not. - Omegatron`
It's not natural in the sense of fitting within a definition of renewable. Even if we assume Uranium replenishment is a "natural" (geological process) that does not additionally mean nuclear power is also natural. We should add a distinction between the perhaps natural geological process of uranium replenishment and the unnatural process of nuclear power. Nuclear power certainly isn't a geological process. zen master T 04:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I HEREBY RESIGN FROM THIS RIDICULOUS DISCUSSION.
SIGNED,
Omegatron
How is nuclear power unnatural? Most green power is based on solar which is based on nuclear fusion on the sun. Geothermal is based on heat from the earth produced by decay of radioactive elements. Maybe this whole disagreement is because when you say renewable you really mean "Green". pstudier 06:01, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
Despite what you and others would have us believe nuclear power is much larger than mining the mineral Uranium. To be renewable it has to be cyclical organic process and/or use sound management principles (see webster's definition above). Some small initial parts of nuclear power may be "natural" in the geological sense but is is not a natural process in the organic sense. What is the feasibility of mining 32,000 tones+ of Uranium from sea water? That citation in the article is from 1983, I am going to have to ask you to come up with something mroe recent than that. Solar and Geothermal are not harmfully radioctive on the surface of the earth, and solar is the biggest part of the organic cycle of life. Please cite any scientists that are claiming "nuclear power" itself is natural (not Uranium) and a cycle. If Omegatron has "resigned" from this debate does that mean I can fix/replace replenished with refilled (or a better word) now? zen master T 13:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Why insist on something more recent? The rivers are still flowing to the ocean. Actually, with the Canadians mining ore with 10% Uranium, there is not much interest in the 4.5 billion tons of Uranium in the ocean at a concentration of 3.3 parts per billion. Garwin and Charpak, in "Megawatts and Megatons", copyright 2001, quote prices of $100 to $300 per kg for Uranium from seawater. pstudier 04:24, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
Updated the reference to a 1990 publication, but you can see ([8], about halfway down, in response to a 2004 paper) he clearly hasn't changed his mind about it.
I just decided it's ridiculous to get emotional (which I am doing) over a single word of a tiny section of a tiny article that will not even be the same 2 years from now, so I am going to forget about it and work on other articles that actually have a chance of becoming neutral and accurate before the sun burns out. I'm really urged to respond to this latest comment, but it's not any different from when you used the same exact "natural" argument above. Nothing's going to be different this time I respond; it's not going to change anyone's mind. So instead I'm taking this page off my watchlist and you can bias the article as much as you want. Fear technology! Radiation is bad and unnatural! - Omegatron 16:39, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
I admit the possibility that I am biased but it is also possible that an objective definition of renewable excludes nuclear power. Please note that the original version of the article did contain glarring inacuracies as far as the definition of renewable energy is concerned. You did not respond to my point about: even if Uranium extraction is considered "natural" that does not mean nuclear power is also "natural". The alternative definition you seem to be defending appears to be mingling those two concepts way too closely together, Uranium extraction is one aspect of nuclear power. I will wait to hear what others think about "replenished" before changing it again (and will try to think of something better than refilled). I was actually hoping you'd cite someone more recent that actually claims nuclear power is itself renewable or natural, not continuing to give the false impression that nuclear power is only about Uranium extraction. zen master T 17:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am still confused by what you mean by "renewable". It does not seem to match the definition in the article. Does "renewable" imply "natural or nonpolluting? If so, then the article should say this. pstudier 04:27, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

The definitions currently used in the article are "on-going natural process", and "does not permanently deplete the resource", and "the most common definition of renewable energy... include only those sources that do not harm the environment during use" so nuclear does not fit. We should state it a tad more directly in the intro section possibly. I have noticed an effort in edits to the article that have changed "solar power" to "solar radiation" to perhaps claim that since solar power is radiation then nuclear radiation should be allowed within the definition of renewable. It won't work. zen master T 13:52, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A Nuclear Debate article

All the fine arguments - on both sides should be in my opinion arranged in a Wiki article. Here I made a first try (surprised that there is no article yet on this remarkable energy policy issue):

Nuclear debate a proposed Wikiarticle

Nuclear energy is one of the energy sources available to the humanity due to advances in science and technology. Benefits of the new energy source are counterbalanced by new risks. Ever since the first large-scale use of nuclear energy, explosion of two atomic bombs in 1946, nuclear energy is a matter of diverse nuclear debates. Though dealing with diverse issues, from military to economic ones, solid pro- and anti- nuclear division of opinion are common.

For military issues see Category:Nuclear weapons

Disputes about use of nuclear energy for industrial purposes, nuclear power generation, range from academic issues such as whether fissionable materials (uranium and thorium) are in sufficient supply, to problems of public acceptance of the risks and environmental impact that widespread use of nuclear energy entails. Energy policies are also influenced by the nuclear debate.

(Chapters)

  • Role of nuclear energy in total primary energy supply
    • Is nuclear energy an inexhaustible source of energy?
    • Nuclear energy: where, when, how much and why?
  • Nuclear energy debate in North America
  • Nuclear energy debate in the Western Europe
    • France
    • Italy
    • Germany
    • Sweden
    • UK
    • Other countries
On miltary use of nuclear there are articles.

This is not yet quite enough even for a stub, but may soon be. MGTom 01:52, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

Is this debate about whether nuclear is renewable? I don't consider that to be a tenable position but you knew that already :-) I think any article should state exactly which sources are claiming nuclear is renewable, like we should do for any claim. Where is the risk of accidents section and the problem of disposing of the radioactive waste, see Yucca Mountain. zen master T 02:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is a good point: not only supply of raw materials matters. For an energy source to be renewable (or sustainable) you also have to get rid of the waste. Germans have symetrical expressions: Versorgung and Entsorgung. Same problem with fossil fuels. MGTom 21:46, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

You are to be commended for your work on this. However, I think one needs to be clear-eyed about the problems of starting such an article. The whole nuclear debate is highly contested ground. Wikipedia could actually play a role in de-mystifying some of the spin that comes out on both sides of the debate. However, I'm not sure that is what Wikipedia is all about. To cite one example: I added a reference to the CANDU reactor above. By burning weapons-derived plutonium as fuel, CANDU could actually render existing stocks less reactive and less toxic. However, a proposal by Atomic Energy of Canada and the U.S. Department of Energy to do this is hotly contested [9]. Would we be able to sort through all the chaff? To do so we would need some environmentally-conscious nuclear scientists (sic) working on it. How could we avoid not doing original research? Sunray 23:28, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
"Wikipedia could actually play a role in de-mystifying some of the spin that comes out on both sides of the debate. However, I'm not sure that is what Wikipedia is all about."
The way I see it, that is what Wikipedia is about. When I'm looking for unbiased information I come here first, because anything that has a significant edit history is bound to lie somewhere near the average of opinion. It will naturally converge as the extremely biased people change it back and forth until it becomes something they can all agree with, either because the pieces are facts or because they are popularly held beliefs. - Omegatron 03:16, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)


The Great April 2005 Debate

On to better and brighter things

I honestly don't want to be a smartarse, but I do feel, after reading this discussion page, that many of the editors of this page have gotten locked up inside towers of righteousness. I hope that most people can agree with what I've done to the page and no-one will be childish enough to simply revert it. Initially, I just tried to fix the problems that I felt were cluttering up this page. Then, and only then, did I read the talk page (I apologise for that, but I find most talk pages cluttered with outdated comments on earier versions of the page). When I learned about the Great Battle of Nuclear that had taken place in your history, I tried to work your comments into the 'new' (as it were) page.

As I was typing this, it seems User:Zen-Master has not so much reverted my work, as he has hijacked it. By which I mean no offence. I mean that he has used the oportunity to reduce the nuclear and fossil fuels sections to 'synopses'. I was under the impression that this page stood under an uneasy truce in which both parties has basically, and perhaps non-verbally, agreed to stay off off these sections. To keep the truce, I had tried to edit the page to reflect both sides of the argument. Still, if no-one objects, I don't exactly mind the reduction. Let sleeping dogs lie, I suppose. I do feel however that this acticle should be something everyone can find themselves in, and that the current state of the article should not merely reflect the opinion of the last man caring.

I will be reverting article to some extent, to make it NPO. Also, I don't think Piezo or EM antenae are 'non-renewable'.

I suppose I still come off sounding like a smartarse, again, I apologise. I would like to suggest that any further comments be placed below this section, to avoid further confusion. If the debate on nuclear power's renewability continues to thrill people, perhaps they could, as was suggested above, create a new page on the subject. Apparently there are enough arguments pro and con to fill atleast a stub. Ec5618 02:32, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

truce? The definition of the word renewable excludes nuclear and fossil fuels? Your edits trying to co-opting the definition of renewable appears to me to be a very subtle yet pround attempt at pro-nuclear industry POV. At best u can say the definition is disputed but the most commonly accepted definition is nuclear and fossil fuels do not fit renewable. But your edits even stated direcly that they weren't renewable, you are arguing both sides of the equation to seem moderate? On what basis do they deserve more than a passing mention in this article? I also noticed you removed "renewable" from a sub header and the previous version had the "nuclear isn't renewable" sentence at the very bottom. The only relevancy that I can see between nuclear and fossil fuels is comparing and contrasting with Future energy development. zen master T 02:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why then was there such a lengthy discussion on the subject? I am in no way pro nuclear, I find the very concept apalling. I would like humanity use only the natural resources it has been given. The idea of free energy offends me greatly.

That said, the definition, as it stood, said clearly, to anyone willing to read between the lines, that nuclear energy is as renewable as sunlight is.

Please allow others to voice their opinions now, before simply reverting again. Maybe someone will have something useful to add. Perhaps someone will take offence with your stance that the matter has been resolved. Ec5618 02:32, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Erm, User:Zen-master.

  1. Why give small scale energy sources a new header, outside of Modern energy sources?
  2. Why remove the bold from the word 'not' in the nuclear section, but not in the fossil fuels section?
  3. Why add 'renewable' to the first section header again. The disclaimer following it still states that the list is of "comprehensive list of energy generation methods in existance, practical or not." That would seem to include both nuclear and fossil fuels. That was my point.
  4. What is wrong, please tell me, with having a list of energy sources, and going into further detail on each case's 'renewable-ness' in the section itself?
  5. Also, where in my comment "Still, if no-one objects, I don't exactly mind the reduction." did you extract the idea that I am pro nuclear?
  6. Finally, is this discussion not something that should be reflected by the acticle? The two sides of the story? Two opinions? Don't tell me everyone agrees with your opinion in this matter.

Ec5618 02:48, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Renewable energy generally refers to large scale alternatives (because the issue is one of ramping up to meet increasing energy needs given Peak oil) so small scale gets it's own section. We should add a synopsis section on recycling since that may decrease the demand for energy. I removed the bolding around not, I don't know who added it. This article is about renewable energy sources so why are you trying to make the scope way too generic, just so nuclear can be subtley included? The commonly accepted definition of renewable energy excludes nuclear, so for that reason nuclear should be in it's own contrasted with non renewable energy sources synopsis section. The subtleties of your edits makes you seem like pro nuclear to me, but I have an open mind. I am ok with presenting the claim that nuclear is renewable, but the article should clearly state this falls far outside the consensus among scientists and does not jive with a dictionary definition. It should also be pointed out whenever there is an attempt at co-opting a definition for the purpose of POV. zen master T 03:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


.. and a dictionary definition of the word renewable disagree. Please, "Relating to or being a commodity or resource, such as solar energy or firewood, that is inexhaustible or replaceable by new growth." Inexhaustible. Either the Sun is, or nuclear power isn't. Again, I am not advocation nuclear power, but this rediculous.

..and there is currently no long term storage solution (see Yucca Mountain). What country are you from then? Yucca mountain is a nice example but as a location only relevant to Americans.

Separately, fossil fuels are generally not considered renewable because of pollution and their contribution to Global warming. Take out your dictionary again. Point me to where it says that? Nowhere in our definition, not in the dictionary definition is Renewable equated to Sustainable.

This page is 57 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable

Just for the record, I still don't feel nuclear power is in any way renewable. But: it seems some people disagree (have you seen the discussion? Please scroll up), and I'll try to make sure this article reflects that. Also, I do not agree with the removal of information from an article, unless it is utterly useless or incorrect. I tried to refute "Estimates by Bernard Cohen". I feel you should not have removed my text, but should have moved it to the article on "IS Nuclear power renewable", "Nuclear power", or whereever you feel it should be moved to. Even if this article is not, in your mind, the place for certain information, you should not simply delete it. I'm getting a little crabby now, so I'll go to bed. Try not to take that as an invitation to impose your own beliefs on this article. I'm crabby, please ignore last comment. Ec5618 04:25, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


Why did you revert? Is that cleaning up? Ec5618 04:36, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

"new growth" means organic. The sun is life giving energy, nuclear power isn't. Nuclear power isn't an energy flow. The entire concept of renewable energy was created precisely to avoid pollution and lack of environmentally sound sustainability from "traditional" energy sources such as fossil fuels and nuclear. If you guys would stop and actually think about the logistical details of the subtle propaganda you are trying to push you'd realize co-opting the word renewable is in opposition to the entire concept of renewable energy and will fail as a propaganda operation. If the definition of renewable meant what you claim it does there would be no need for the concept of renewable energy to begin with, everything would just be energy. The concept of renewable energy was created in the 1970s precisely to move away from nuclear and fossil fuels. If there is any info I removed let's add it back, please don't revert to the old version, I believe I succintified the claims of the pro nuclear is renewable folk(s), I did not remove info. It's not notable to mention Cohen, instead mention his allegations succinctly I think since he really just represents the nuclear industry. zen master T 04:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Stop reverting without checking to see what you are reverting. Changes, one of which you disagree with, shouldn't be reverted arbitrarily. Why move nuclear back out of 'discussion', for one?

I 'omitted' radioactive? Fine, include the word radioactive. and there I thought I had quietly snuck the omission of the word radioactive by you. Why include the word? What does it add, except an emotional response. Radioactive bad.

Your post above, reads like New Age crap. There is no clear difference between nuclear power (fission) and solar power (fusion). "New Organic Growth". You made that up. Not only are plants already covered by SUNLIGHT, you're trying to invent a definition that excludes Nuclear power specifically, just what you were accused of doing before (Again, see discussion, scroll up) And while the concept of renewable energy may have been introduced to avoid pollution, the definition of renewable was aparently not. As you can see, the definition matches nuclear power (solar power is nuclear power, once it's gone, it's gone).

By the way, I would appreciate it if you would stop claiming that I like nuclear power. It's toxic, harmful, wasteful and teaches no-one about the value of the energy. I truly find no logic in the statement that nuclear power is renewable.

That said; look at the definition of renewable as it is, as it was, as your dictionary defines it. Renewable does not, to anyone who wants to see it, exclude nuclear power, and this article's failure to address that will cause stupid people to disbelieve the article. They will read the definition of renewable, apply the definition to nuclear power, find it fits, and will realise when they read the rest of the article that it was written by eco-wacko's. Up until this day, the article claimed that nuclear fuel could power our world for billions of years. Why didn't you do something about that? Did you realise it wasn't true? Whenever this encyclopedia claims something is fact, when there are subgroups of people who need to see the evidence for that claim, the evidence should be included. Right there, or through a clearly marked link. And since there is still no article on 'nuclear myths', the evidence should remain here. The evidence states that a popular myth is false. That it is bases on incomplete data. People should be able to read that.

Meanwhile, this talk page is 60 kB long, while the article itself is a decent size (you'll notice it became shorter today. Please, take some time, rest on some laurels, and let someone else take a look at what we've done. Someone could be waking up as I type. Ec5618 05:20, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Two points. One, I don't think Yucca Mountain should be mentioned here. Let's resist the urge to politicize the article. If someone insists on including it, please make sure it's a neutral mention. Second point, this article has fallen into the trap of using the word "considered" many times with no references. Every time we say something like "nuclear energy is not considered a renewable energy", we must say who makes this claim. I just skimmed the old discussion. All this arguing based on dictionary definitions makes my head hurt. Please remember NPOV: It's not our job to define terms and then write articles based on our own make-believe definitions. We describe existing debates accurately, we don't try to cover brave new semantic ground in every article. Rhobite 05:32, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Definition of renewable, generally accepted as Green energy?

  • Here is definition from the Texas Renewable Energy Industry Association which got the following definition of "renewable energy" approved by the Texas legislature:
Renewable energy: Any energy resource that is naturally regenerated over a short time scale and derived directly from the sun (such as thermal, photochemical, and photoelectric), indirectly from the sun (such as wind, hydropower, and photosynthetic energy stored in biomass), or from other natural movements and mechanisms of the environment (such as geothermal and tidal energy). Renewable energy does not include energy resources derived from fossil fuels, waste products from fossil sources, or waste products from inorganic sources. [10]
  • Here is article that lists 48 groups that refuted president bush's statement that nuclear is renewable [11]
Those are good references to discuss in the article. They should not be used as evidence of an "official" definition, and they should not be used as proof that we should remove certain statements from the article. Rhobite 05:41, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
I have never sought to exclude the claim that nuclear is renewable from the article (after talk page discussion that there is such a claim). I just think the article should convey the fact that the commonly accepted definition and essence of the definition is renewable excludes nuclear, so clarity is as pristine as possible. Ec seemed, to me, to be subtly advancing a pro-nuclear definition, though I admit my criticisms is very narrowly focused, I really only took issue with the choice of words he was using in certain areas. zen master T 05:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I've moved the controversial bits to the 'discussion of renewable energy' section. Seems logical. I moved the controversial bits to the 'discussion of renewable energy' section. Seems logical. Please, before reverting (I'm expecting it now), explain why you feel the text does not belong in the 'discussion' section? Let's discuss your reasoning. While you may emotionally feel the section on nuclear is evil, please read it carefully

"When the term renewable was introduced (see defining renewable within this article), it was a generally held belief that the Earth's sources of nuclear material would be depleted within some fifty years." - is true, no?

"Since then, the breeder reactor was invented. While our current stock of fissile materials could be exhausted in a few decades, by using breeder reactors, which transform materials that are not generally fissile (such as the most isotope of uranium into easily fissile material, such as plutonium, and by harvesting nuclear material from mines, seawater and granite, we could theoretically continue to use nuclear power for as much as thousands of years." - please, disprove this assesment, if you feel it's not true.

"Still, nuclear power is a limited power. Using fisile materials means depleting them, while renewable energy sources such as the wind can in realistic terms be tapped indefinately, by any number of turbines. Increasing energy output through wind turbines would involve erecting wind turbines, while increasing energy output through nuclear power brings the moment of depletion closer." - Feel free to add more anti-nuclear commentary and facts. I might have done it myself if I hadn't had to defend a position for half a day now.

I'll repeat, once more (with feeling). Renewable should not mean nuclear. But the article should reflect the fact that many people feel it is, or are trying to spin it as such, and the article should contain why. Ec5618 12:29, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Removed While estimates by people like Bernard Cohen suggest we could use continue to use nuclear power for billions of years, possibly beyond the lifespan of our sun, it should be noted that he failed to factor in that humanity's energy needs will presumably continue to grow, and, more importantly, that in 5 billion years the amount of uranium on Earth would have decayed naturally to about 100th of current stocks.

First, if the population continues to grow, no energy source is adequate. Second, the half life of uranium is 4.5 billion years, so half of it will still be left in 5 billion years. As for uranium being depleted in 50 years, whom ever estimated that was way off. See Uranium. pstudier 16:33, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

I have no problem with the claim by pro nuclear industry folks that nuclear is renewable, but the article should convey the vast majority of people and sources (that I cited above) disagree. One pro industry shill is hardly overwhelming evidence. zen master T 17:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
pStudier, you misunderstood me, which, is my fault :)
Nuclear energy has a set amount of energy it can yield. The only reason we don't know how much, is that we don't know how much of the stuff there is.
Wind/Solar/ect are only limited by time (and practical problems). Should we want more electricity, we could just erect another wind turbine, solar tower, whatever. The energy is there, it flows past us, and we can tap into it, generating just a little bit of electricity in the process.
In the article, I suggested a definition of 'renewable', that I thought most people could get in bed with:
"For the purposes of this article we've defined renewable energy sources, as energy sources that tap into existing energy flows, and effectively, tap relatively little of the energy that would otherwise 'go to waste'."

Yay/Nay?

Ec5618 17:39, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
I changed the article to state that the common definition of renewable energy excludes nuclear/is the green definition, but I kept the alternative definition in there. If you guys can debunk the sources I posted above for the claim that the most common definition of renewable excludes nuclear then we can change that section back. zen master T 17:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Enough of the ad hominem attacks. I am not a shill, I have never worked in the nuclear nor in :any energy related industry. pstudier 18:43, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
Hi there,
Debunk the claim? Gladly.
Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed
Catch the Wind, Change the Weather
Threats to Desert Tortoise Populations (Solar)
Burnt biomass causes long-term warming
I'm just going to pop over to the Edit page and remove water power, wind power, solar power and biomass, because they're not actually Green. 'Green' is a very laden word, so much so that it has no meaning within the context of an encyclopedia.
The definition from the children thing is not funny.
The definition from the Texas Energy Industry Association is a joke:
"Any energy resource that is naturally regenerated over a short time scale .." "Renewable does not include .. " No good definition needs to remove specific examples, because they don't go.
Ec5618 18:47, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

These definitions you call jokes are commonly accepted, the second passed into law in Texas, based on dictionary. The majority of groups disagree with Bush's errant usage of renewable to mean nuclear. I agree renewables aren't perfect but you have yet to show any evidence for the claim that nuclear meets the definition of renewable, bashing "green" renewables isn't enough to include nuclear. Nuclear fundamentally is not an organic cyclical process. zen master T 19:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Renewable energy: Any energy resource that is naturally regenerated over a short time scale and derived directly from the sun (such as thermal, photochemical, and photoelectric), indirectly from the sun (such as wind, hydropower, and photosynthetic energy stored in biomass), or from other natural movements and mechanisms of the environment (such as geothermal and tidal energy). Renewable energy does not include energy resources derived from fossil fuels, waste products from fossil sources, or waste products from inorganic sources."
It's still a joke. Law? You're kidding, right? What is, by law, the definition of 'a short time scale'? This law doesn't adress nuclear energy, unless the energy were derived from inorganic waste material, but if it were used as such, it would cease to be a waste product, and would become a resource. Loopholes are not usually this obvious in US laws, I hope.
Anyway, you didn't comment on my edit. Is it alright?
And, a-effing-gain, I'll say: I DO NOT BELIEVE NUCLEAR FUEL IS RENEWABLE.
Why does Bush claim it is? Article should reflect that.
I was not bashing "green" renewables, I was demonstrating the ambiguity in your definition.
Renewable IN ITSELF does not mean Green, since no-one knows what 'green' is. Is wind power green? [12]
QED
Ec5618 19:26, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, your point is basically that renewable energy sources can still pollute? (and in that context why can't nuclear be renewable too?) I removed direct usage of "green energy" from the definition which will hopefully allay that concern of yours. I also added clarity to the nuclear energy counter argument sentence so we directly state "green" renewables can still can pollute, and this point is one of the pro nuclear is renewable arguments. Are we making progress at least? zen master T 19:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


This is getting tiresome.
Are you hoping I'll just give up?
I'll do you the courtesy of explaining why I've reverted. The discussion about the inclusion of nuclear power has been going on without me for a long time. I feel it is in part my duty to take the wishes expressed in that discussion into account whenever I edit.
I do.
Many people have argued about this, so please show why YOU should remove it. Why not be broad and complete? Why not start a new article in which both views are expressed? Oh, wait. There isn't enough stuff to type about, so this article would probably be the best place anyway.
I was demonstrating the ambiguity in your definition. I can keep doing so.
A "cyclical organic process" was what created all fossil fuels. Look it up. Life and death.
Let's try discussing here, before resorting to more reverts:

"The term 'renewable energy' was introduced in the 1970s in an effort to move away from nuclear and fossil fuels.

The definition of renewable is the subject of heated debate, as some people argue that 'renewable energy' should be defined as 'green', to totally debunk the idea that nuclear power could be renewable. In most contexts, renewable is indeed equated to environmentally friendly. The terms 'green' energy, or 'clean' energy are often used as synonyms. On the other hand, others, notably nuclear power advocates, argue that many sources of renewable energy can still generate pollution, for example, burning biomatter charcoal can cause soot and carcinogens to be released, but it is considered renewable because it comes from wood, an organic cyclical process.
Ec5618 19:52, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


What part of "Perhaps, Zen-master, we could debate the wording of the single disputed paragraph in the talk page." did you have the problem understanding? Ec5618

I reverted before you posted on the talk page. Also note it has been established that the common definition of renewable excludes nuclear, the article should reflect that. Fossil fuels are not inexhaustible, they are an energy resource not an energy flow. I removed direct usage of "clean" and "green" from the definition, that should have allayed your concerns, but you added it back, why? I also noted that true "renewable" energy sources can still cause pollution. So what specifically is your issue? It's much more clear now. zen master T 20:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You reverted before I posted on the talk page? Why? God, why? What part of "Perhaps, Zen-master, we could debate the wording of the single disputed paragraph in the talk page." did you have the problem understanding?

"Also note it has been established that the common definition of renewable excludes nuclear, the article should reflect that." - I disagree.

Your version: "The term 'renewable energy' was introduced in the 1970s during the Green revolution in an effort to move away from nuclear and fossil fuels during the first Fuel embargo?, which eventually led to an increase in Fuel efficiency.

The definition of renewable is the subject of heated debate, one common definition is that 'renewable energy' means energy taken from sources that are inexhaustible and from an energy flow or cyclical organic process. In light of this definition, nuclear power is generally not considered renewable. Some, notably the nuclear power industry, argue that many sources of renewable energy still generate pollution, for example, burning biomatter charcoal can cause soot and carcinogens to be released, but it is considered renewable because it comes from wood, an organic cyclical process." The problems I have: Green revolution had little do with anything. Fuel embargo is not explained. Fuel efficiency? Why in Caps? Why included? Why global fuel efficiency? I never had a problem with the word Green, but nothing should be defined as green, as the definition is vague. Still, the term Green, as a term, is very much 'in vogue' right now and may be included. Common definition? There is no common definition. Not one that includes the vague 'cyclical organic process'. No-one on this Earth would respond: "Renewable? Yes, isn't that like a cylindrical organic process?"

My version: "The term 'renewable energy' was introduced in the 1970s in an effort to move away from nuclear and fossil fuels.

The definition of renewable is the subject of heated debate, as some people argue that 'renewable energy' should be defined as 'green', to totally debunk the idea that nuclear power could be renewable. In most contexts, renewable is indeed equated to environmentally friendly. The terms 'green' energy, or 'clean' energy are often used as synonyms. On the other hand, others, notably nuclear power advocates, argue that many sources of renewable energy can still generate pollution, for example, burning biomatter can cause soot and carcinogens to be released, but it is considered renewable because it comes from an organic cyclical process." What is wrong with my version? I don't see it. Feel free to ADD information. Ec5618

I believe I have proved, with the citations above, and there is a general consensus among other editors like Rhobite and Sunray and other folks I've asked about the issue, that a definition of renewable generally excludes nuclear. The burden of proof is on you to come up with citations to make the changes you want to make. The article currently presents the not generally accepted claim that nuclear is renewable neutrally. zen master T 20:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My, I love having words put in my mouth. Rhobite 20:19, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
My mistake, it would be most clear if you stated the exact nature of where you disagree? When people aren't specific on the talk page I can only judge them by their edits. Do you disagree with the definition that presents the claim of nuclear as renewable equal to the not renewabe version? Ec seems to have changed his mind, a bit at least? zen master T 20:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You know what, you're right. It's allright now. Rhobite, I know, is proud of us.
I added a note on fossil fuels, to be complete, but other that that, nada.
Just checking, do we agree on the line:
""The term 'renewable energy' was introduced in the 1970s in an effort to move away from nuclear and fossil fuels."
?
Zen, I'm not elaborating for two reasons. First, my opinion of the definition of renewable energy is meaningless to this debate, as is yours. Second, I can't stand arguing over terminology. Rhobite 21:46, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy of definitions is of utmost importance, in this situation especially. zen master T 21:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions

Then we can focus on the next bit, which I'm confortable leaving as is for now. If I have an epiphany all bets are off:
The definition of renewable is the subject of heated debate, one commonly used definition is that 'renewable energy' means energy taken from sources that are inexhaustible and from an energy flow or cyclical organic process. In light of this definition, neither fossil fuels nor nuclear power are generally considered renewable. Some, notably the nuclear power industry, argue that many sources of renewable energy still generate pollution, for example, burning charcoal can cause soot and carcinogens to be released, but it is considered renewable because it comes from wood, an organic cyclical process."

Edit:

""The term 'renewable energy' was introduced in the 1970s as part of an effort to move away from nuclear and fossil fuels."
The definition of renewable is the subject of heated debate, one commonly used definition is that 'renewable energy' means energy taken from sources that are inexhaustible and from an energy flow or cyclical organic process. In light of this definition, neither fossil fuels nor nuclear power are generally considered renewable. Some, notably the nuclear power industry, argue that many sources of renewable energy still generate pollution, for example, burning charcoal can cause soot and carcinogens to be released, but it is considered renewable because it comes from wood, an organic cyclical process."

Y/N? Ec5618

What is different exactly? zen master T 20:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now see the bold sub text, imagine it gone. Ec5618

"In light of" can be reworded yes, but "generally" is a factual statement, the commonly/generally accepted definition of renewable *does* exclude nuclear. zen master T 20:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This definition excludes nuclear power. And it was mentioned that it is a commonly used definition. But generally asa word doesn't fit here.
"In this definition, neither fossil fuels nor nuclear power are considered renewable."
This definition ABSOLUTELY excludes nuclear power, not generally

Ec5618

Well, since you are contrasting this definition with the pro nuclear is renewable definition it's not clear that the first definition is the commonly accepted one. zen master T 21:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, but let's continue:

""The term 'renewable energy' was introduced in the 1970s as part of an effort to move away from nuclear and fossil fuels."
The definition of renewable is the subject of heated debate, one commonly used definition is that 'renewable energy' means energy taken from sources that are inexhaustible and from an energy flow or cyclical organic process. In this definition, neither fossil fuels nor nuclear power are considered renewable.
Some, notably the nuclear power industry, argue that many sources of renewable energy still generate pollution, for example, burning charcoal can cause soot and carcinogens to be released, but it is considered renewable because it comes from wood, an organic cyclical process."

Y/N? Ec5618

Well, I have an overall problem with the pro nuclear is renewable definition in that it reduces the word "renewable" into meaning "does not pollute" which I consider to be provably inaccuate, though I am ok if we leave the pro nuclear is renewable "claim" in the article. Renewable energy precisely means: a non exhaustible, environmentally sound and sustainable, organically cyclical energy source or energy flow. Effectively it comes down to a belief whether nuclear power is a "sound" or wise energy source. I think the pro nuclear definition should state that it is in direct opposition to the commonly accepted definition, rather than just being a randomly "alternative" definition. Proving environmentally sound/non-exhaustible sources of energy also pollute does not automatically mean nuclear is renewable. If anything, our disagreement is suggesting that the concerns of pollution and energy efficiency should be paramount since everything does pollute to some degree. Reduce consumerism/consumption and part of the problem goes away. What do you think? --

I'm afraid I partially disagree. renewable does not ever mean 'does dot pollute'. "a non exhaustible, environmentally sound and sustainable, organically cyclical energy source or energy flow" There, a definition. I wholeheartedly agree with the emotion, if not with the wording. I have a problem with 'environmentally sound' which is vague. Critics claim wind power, for example, is not environmentally sound, for many reasons (many of which are bunk). I'll agree, pro nuclear should be nuanced. But the definition stands.

""The term 'renewable energy' was introduced in the 1970s as part of an effort to move away from nuclear and fossil fuels."
The definition of renewable is the subject of heated debate. One commonly used definition states that renewable energy' is '
# energy extracted from sources that will be inexhaustible for eons and
# from an energy flow or cyclical organic process.
In this definition, neither fossil fuels nor nuclear power can be considered renewable. The term 'renewable' is most commonly accepted to mean just that.
I feel we should include a paragraph on the possibly harmful effects of other 'renewables'.
Ec5618


Some, notably nuclear power advocates, argue that many sources of renewable energy still generate pollution, which raises concerns that they are not fully renewable, or feasable in the long term. For example, burning charcoal can cause soot and carcinogens to be released, but it is considered renewable because it comes from wood, an organic cyclical process."

Ec5618

That is good but "most commonly accepted" is better than "to most people". Also, the pro nuclear definition ignores the point that the word renewable is more than just comparing apparent/initial levels of pollution. Fundamentally, it's a question of long term feasibility, the renewable energy movement started because of a conclusion there will be a need to replace exhaustible and unsound energy sources (intentionally excluding nuclear as being unsound/unfeasible/unnatural long term when waste, risk of accidents and the [perhaps mitigated] risk of uranium depletion is factored in). zen master T 22:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


The term 'renewable energy' was introduced in the 1970s as part of an effort to move beyond nuclear and fossil fuels.
The definition of renewable is the subject of heated debate. One commonly used definition states that 'renewable energy' is energy from sources that will be inexhaustible for eons and that is tapped from an existing flow of energy or cyclical organic renewal process.
In this definition, neither fossil fuels nor nuclear power can be considered renewable, which fits with the commonly accepted view.


Notes:
  • Removed last paragraph; I feel we should include a paragraph on the possibly harmful effects of other 'renewables'. Just not here. The paragraph about the burning charcoal is irrelevant in adiscussion on the definition of renewable.
  • 'inexhaustible for eons' - eons are incredibly long, but undefined time spans;
  1. The longest division of geologic time, containing two or more eras.
  2. An indefinitely long period of time; an age.
- It's more correct than the term inexhaustible on itself. Nothing is inexhaustible. Think, heat death of the universe.
  • I'm going to bed now. Zen-master, feel free to upload these edits, should you agree. Peace.
Ec5618
If we are making up our own definition, I think we should say so: "For purposes of this article, renewable energy is defined as:"
If inexhaustable doesn't work for some folks, let's try something else. I don't think that "inexhaustable for eons" really adds much due to the vagueness of "eons" as a construct. How about this:
An energy resource that is replaced rapidly by natural processes. Sunray 23:44, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Here's something that has been bothering me. The discussion of renewable and definition occurs halfway through the article. This seems illogical. How about we try moving it up? Sunray 23:53, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)


Moving it up, no problem
Will be editing it though.
  1. The term 'renewable energy' was introduced in the 1970s as part of an effort to move beyond nuclear and fossil fuels.
  2. The definition of renewable is the subject of considerable debate. One commonly used definition is the following:
    Renewable energy is an energy resource that is replaced rapidly by natural, ongoing processes.
  3. In this definition, neither fossil fuels nor nuclear power can be considered renewable, which fits with the commonly accepted view.
  4. Often, the term renewable is confused with, used in tandem with, or used synonymously with, the term 'environmentally friendly', which is not true per se.
What lines, if any, do we disgree on?
Ec5618
What you have outlined above reads well. The only thing I have a problem with is taking a generally used definition and modifying it. If we do that, we can't say that it is a "commonly used" definition. Sunray 14:43, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Should be the commonly used definition not one commonly used definition, since it really is the commonly used definition. zen master T 17:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Progress

Should be the commonly used definition not one commonly used definition. (zen)

  • renewable energy is an energy resource - ? fixed
  • point is not pollution as such, it is that they have an impact, so current renewable may not forever be the solution - changed
  • a processes - changed
  • power industry suggests only biased people - power advocates include indoctrination victims, if you will - changed
  • we may want to add, that, since 'renewable' was coined to exclude nuclear, an attempt to include nuclear or coal is stupid (don't quote me) and goes against the spirit of the word. The argument is on semantics, as there is NO definitive definition of 'renewable'.

Ec5618

Ec, your recent changes look fine except shouldn't it be "negative" environmental impacts rather than just some random environmental impact? The key point is basically that renewables were more "green" than fossil fuels and nuclear at least at the time of the 1970s. It can be argued that the belief of something currently thought of as renewable will not be in the future (after we have more info), but that doesn't affect the definition of renewable. I assume you are ok with the clarity and caveat changes I made earlier (since you added to them?) zen master T 22:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The current paragraphs are a matter of compromise :). Although any given definition of 'renewable' may still technically include nuclear, the 'spirit' of the term definately does not, and the article now reflects that. Negative impact, I don't think we should say that. They have an impact, they change the world around them, the world will never be the same. Thus, current renewables are not necessarily 'sustainable' in the long run, that is the point.
Also, as an aside: As I see it, the word 'renewable' is being hijacked by both sides. Nuclear/Coal people, even Bush, claim they are renewable. Anti-wind power people claim wind is not renewable. The word is not definately defined, it only has a meaning in context.
Do you agree?

ps: I still feel the need for a 'Nuclear debate' article. Perhaps we can create a stub, atleast.

Ec5618 22:43, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
The point of renewable energy is more sustainable than fossil fuels and nuclear. In this context "environmental impacts" are a "negative". A nuclear debate article is a good idea. I strongly disagree that any definition of "renewable energy" allows nuclear power. The confusion exists because nuclear power advocates seemingly are trying to squeeze a definition out of just the word "renewable", but the phrase is actually "renewable energy". Again, if "renewable energy" meant what you want it to there would be no need to even have a distinction of renewable energy being different than "regular" energy. The nuclear power industry (and coal etc) should just state nuclear power is the best thing we have to replace oil for electricity generation and here is how we are going to make it safe. zen master T 00:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Jaffa, hear me (imagine a booming voice, I always wanted to say that)
"Again, if "renewable energy" meant what you want it to there would be no need to even have a distinction of renewable energy being different than "regular" energy."
That is why I agree with your that the article shouldn't consider nuclear nor coal renewable. The sentiment of the tern 'renewable (energy' clearly doesn't include nuclear and coal. But the fact is, which this talk page reflects, that there is NO clear, scientific definition of 'renewable energy'. The point is not that the energy is inexhaustible, as nothing is. The point is also not that renewables do not pollute, as everything does (have an impact). And, the point is not that it is energy derived from solar energy, as geothermal energy is not. Renewable energy is not 'green' or 'clean'. And finally, renewable energy cannot be defined as those Texans did, as 'wind, water, earth, heart (the power is yours) but not nuclear and coal, without a (scientific,) undisputable reason given for the exclusion.
Another note on adding negative to environmental impacts. I disagree on the grounds that neither the definitions of 'global warming' nor 'climate change' limit themselves to negative climate change, because negative, you must admit, is a matter of opinion. I could argue (but won't) that a mass extinction right about now would do eveolution a world of good (note: I don't believe so, but I could argue, trust me).
That said, I feel we're reaching the end of this discussion, for us atleast. I'm going to move the discussion into the 'Great Nuclear Debate', and scream a little :)
Ec5618 08:58, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear Fusion must be perfected before the fossil fuels run out

Many people feel that nuclear energy is not to be trusted due to the waste that it produces and the danger of the producing of power through this method of nuclear fission(Chernobyl).

However what alot of people do not realise that the fossil fuels on this earth do not have a long time before they run out. When they do, there must be an effiecient source of renewable energy to tap into or we will face an energy crisis.

Many feel that clean energy sources such as wind, hydroelectric or geothermal are the answer to this problem and disregard nuclear energy all together. In my opinion this would be the wrong thing to do. Wind firstly, is a very inefficient source of power as windmills generate very little energy and then none at all when the wind doesnt blow. Solar power faces the same problem and although hydroelectric and geothermal are both more efficient that these two, they still could not produce enough energy to satisfy the needs of the entire planet.

Thus, it brings us to nuclear. Nuclear fission, our current form of nuclear power, while it produces much power, the waste it produces is radioactive and comes out in large quantities, which is why most people would fear tunring to nuclear as our primary source of energy. However there is nuclear fusion. This produces infinite amounts of energy and leaves no waste, the ideal source of power. Afraid not as it is not stable enough to use as an energy source. This is why we must be trying to perfect this source of energy rather than spending time trying to use solar or wind power. --Jkwon31 12:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)