Template talk:Renewable energy sources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Template This article has been rated as template-Class on the assessment scale.

The International Energy Agency does not classify nuclear power as renewable.[1] It is misleading to list Nuclear power in this template. -- Johnfos 05:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Third Party Opinion - Initiated
Unsources controversial material may be removed at any time, so I think you're in the right. However, the IEA is not the only authority on energy, and, as such, another individual might have a source for nuclear energy being considered a renewable energy. As such, perhaps an open dialogue with co-editor Ghetsmith would be helpful in achieving a resolution through consensus. As it appears, I could find no such dialogue either on the template talke page, your talk page or this other editors talk page; perhaps a discussion would be able to settle things better than a mere edit summary tit-for-tat. Hope this helps...Good day :) DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 12:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Honestly, I thought the consensus was that there is no consensus. If you go to the Renewable energy article, it's fairly contested. Furthermore, if I go to the Japanese renewable energy article, they add at the end "Nuclear energy is sometimes included," which pretty well sums it up I think. But you really need to be more specific, is nuclear a:

This is kind of like asking "is Missouri a southern state." Some people say it is, some people say it isn't. I think it's probably going to stay but with some disclaimer note saying that it's contested. But I'm not 100% neutral myself anyway. I hope someone else comments. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 22:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


This is an unsigned message from Ghetsmith which I received on my Talk page:

Contents

[edit] Nuclear Power

DO NOT REMOVE NUCLEAR POWER FROM THE LIST AGAIN!

It's clear that Ghetsmith is pushing a particular POV, and the threatening tone of this message precludes further discussion with this user... -- Johnfos 23:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you should include Nuclear Energy in the list, probably with some sort of disclaimer as you said. Though I am not extremely knowledgeable about the subject, I have heard that breeder reactors are renewable in some ways. For one thing, they do not leave a lot of radioactive waste, which is one of the main concerns about nuclear plants. --Tea and crumpets 17:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding POV tag

I've added a POV tag to the template, for the reasons discussed above. -- Johnfos 02:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't help. This is a private edit war and putting pov on the template just confuses everyone who sees it. 199.125.109.108 05:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quit your stupid edit war

Nuclear is sustainable, not renewable. And energy development has nothing to do with renewable energy, they are two totally different subjects. 199.125.109.108 04:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding nuclear power or changing the name of the template are vandalism. Please stop. 199.125.109.20 09:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that sustainable vs. renewable is an interesting debate. If renewable energy refers to something that will never run out (such as water power), and you want to claim that nuclear power, although it can presumably last for a long, long, long time, will eventually run out (because it uses up material that will eventually run out), then wouldn't solar power similarly be merely a sustainable energy source, as the sun will, eventually run out of hydrogen? (I overlooked that this was mentioned in the edit summary, but now that I see it there, I think it should be discussed here, rather than remain ignored where it is now.) DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 12:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes but it is only a debate. The consensus is that renewable energy sources are ones that you get a fresh supply every day, and that create no waste products. The aspect that makes them renewable is that you get a fresh supply every day, not that you never run out. Hence the word renewable, as opposed to perhaps inexhaustable. It is a convenient distinction which fits only a handful of sources, and nuclear is not one of them. 199.125.109.33 15:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Huh?! Renewables create no waste products? Well then strike biomass and biodiesel from the list. You're making stuff up. Stop it. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 19:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
It was controversial at the time to add them. As you indicate, the consensus is that they are renewable. But just don't tell that to the folks who have cut down all their forests and they are gone forever. 199.125.109.81 20:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, they're renewable, that means that they can be renewed. Doesn't mean it's going to go renew itself.-Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 07:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
If that was the definition then coal would be renewable - you can always make more. 199.125.109.20 19:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
No, you can't make more coal at a net energy gain. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 18:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant

Isn't this redundant to Template:Sustainability and Energy Development? (SEWilco 03:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

No. This serves a different purpose, and is highly useful. 199.125.109.20 19:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renewable energy defined

Renewable energy flows involve natural phenomena such as sunlight, wind, tides and geothermal heat, as the International Energy Agency explains:

"Renewable energy is derived from natural processes that are replenished constantly. In its various forms, it derives directly from the sun, or from heat generated deep within the earth. Included in the definition is electricity and heat generated from solar, wind, ocean, hydropower, biomass, geothermal resources, and biofuels and hydrogen derived from renewable resources." (see Renewable energy... into the mainstream p. 9.)

Each of these sources, including geothermal energy, has unique characteristics which influence how and where they are used.

If we look at the "2004 Fuel Shares of World Total Primary Energy Supply" data from IEA, we see that Geothermal energy is included in the renewable energy breakdown. (see Renewables in global energy supply: An IEA facts sheet, p. 3.)

-- Johnfos 02:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear Power Explained

If you are interested in a fuller explination of why nuclear power is renewable, there are several good books at the local bookstore regarding this topic. Nuclear Energy Now is a good source, ISBN 978-0-470-05136-8, p.1-200. Or if you are at a University, you can ask your Electrical Engineering professors. Some universities offer graduate level courses on nuclear power. Ghetsmith 03:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The first place I look for reliable information about energy is the prestigious International Energy Agency. As explained immediately above, the IEA do not classify nuclear power as renewable. And nuclear power does not meet the IEA definition for a renewable energy technology.
The view that nuclear power is renewable is a minority view which receives some attention in the Renewable energy article, as per NPOV. But to include it in this template is to give the view undue weight, which is wrong, as per WP:WEIGHT. So I am removing Nuclear power from the Template. -- Johnfos 06:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You know thousands of people have been arrested to stop nuclear power. Ask any of them if nuclear power is renewable. They will all tell you no. Just think about all eight of the renewables on the template. Waves keep wafting the shore whether you use their energy or not. Sunlight keeps on shining. Tides come and go twice a day. Biomass/biofuel requires some processing but trees and plants grow all by themselves. Geothermal just bubbles up out of the ground all by itself. Wind blows whether you stick a turbine up in it or not. Hydropower, rivers flow down to the sea whether you put in a dam or not. Did I miss any? No, that's all eight. All of them are natural processes that replace themselves continually, hence the name renewable. There is just no comparison whatsoever to nuclear, which requires extensive digging for ore, handling/processing/containment of nuclear waste virtually forever, none of which are required for any of the renewables. By the way when you are giving a book reference a one or two page reference is preferred, not 200 pages. 199.125.109.84 01:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
If solar was used to power the entire United States, it would require an area about the size of a typical sized state, say New York or maybe North Carolina (not mentioning the land used in the production of the cells and mining of required materials). That requires the entire destruction of the ecosystem that the PV (or other technology) is on. Nuclear plants use about 4 km2 of land per plant, of which 90% is just there to function as a safety buffer. It has trees. Even including this majority of land that nuclear power preserves, the total required area to provide all of our energy needs by nuclear power would be a few times bigger than New York City. Uranium mines have similar effects as any other kinds of minds, and I assure you, they're no North Carolina. So yes, solar and whatnot do use the natural processes of the Earth, and stand a good chance of screwing them up too. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 05:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Putting solar on rooftops does not "destroy" any ecosystem, and easily supplies all of our electricity needs. Uranium mines have a lot worse radiation than coal mines. Not that coal mines have any benefit mind you. Personally I prefer "whatnot" however I could not find an article describing it. 199.125.109.104 17:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move request

I think it would be better to change this to just a list of energy sources. It wouldn't add that many items to it, and there's no reason to make a template of renewable sources over making one for fossil fuels. It would just be better for everyone if we made it representitive of all power production. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 05:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anphibian, I think you should make your new template separate to this one, and then we would have a choice of which template to use in any particular article... Johnfos 06:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Since all the articles on energy sources discuss their environmental impact (or if they don't, they should, and will soon, since the environment is a topic of much concern at present), there really is no reason to have a template for renewable resources only. Each energy source has its advantages and disadvantages, so it is better for people to see for themselves which ones are best than to have a list of what others think is best thrown at them. -Tea and crumpets 21:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The renewable energy sources template is not a list of what others think best, it is a list of renewable energy sources, and very useful as a navaid. I have no problem with someone creating a different template, but I certainly won't use it on any renewable energy article. I see creating another template as just another ploy to hype a particular energy source. Go ahead, and create a template though, if you wish, all it will do is not get used on any of the renewable sources and direct attention away from the non-renewable sources. In other words if you are doing it to hype your favorite energy source, it's going to backfire. 199.125.109.104 05:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion of this template

This is a really small template. Is there a reason it has been kept so small? If not, I plan on expanding it a bit. There are a few reasons for doing so. 1) Centralizes more article links for easier access. 2) Makes the template more prominent - currently it is hidden between the masses of text and images on articles, making it difficult to locate. 3) Lends it more significance and makes it look more substantial and credible. 4) It looks better when it's a reasonable size than when it is too small, as it is now. Now, if there is a reason it's been kept small, I won't expand it. Please let me know of the status. Thanks! Vamooom (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I think space is at a premium at the start of articles and that this navigation box is about the right size. Certainly, it is larger than some other energy-related nav boxes (eg., Template:PeakOil, Template:Anti-nuclear movement). I think if nav boxes get too big they tend not to be used. And the templates at the end of articles, such as Template:Renewable energy by country, can also be added if more links are required. And the List of renewable energy topics by country is also listed in many "See also" sections. All in all, no expansion of this template is warranted. Johnfos (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I'm also taking off Blue energy for now. I have been familiar with it for 30 years now, but although the potential is projected to be 1600 TWh per year, "The construction of the prototype is expected to be completed by the end of 2008. The osmotic power plant will produce between 2-4 kW of energy." That's laboratory scale. Wait until something bigger is in the works. 199.125.109.136 (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)