Talk:Renewable energy
|
|
Template:Energy development Template:POV check
Archive
| Contents |
The Great Nuclear Debate
See the archive for a lengthy discussion on the topic of Nuclear power, and the definition of nuclear. It was argued that the useful service life of nuclear fuel could be extended to 'renewable' timescales. Current consensus seems to be that nuclear power is not renewable on the grounds that:
- Renewable, as a term, was coined to exclude nuclear power.
Anyone who disagrees could start Nuclear energy debate as an article, to discuss the matter more fully.
Ec5618 07:33, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
Content from Future energy development should be merged here
Some content from the Hubbert peak article was moved to a new article Future energy development, this article seems like the more appropriate place to move that info if it's not redundant. Though perhaps alternative energy != renewable energy? zen master 01:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
schedules
"Solar electric generation is a daylight process, whereas most homes have their peak energy requirements at night."
- we could just wake up with the sun and sleep at night; not using lights at night would save a lot. americans are so weird. - Omegatron 02:32, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
repeated sections
"If renewable and distributed generation were to become widespread, electric power transmission and electricity distribution systems would no longer be the main distributors of electrical energy but would operate to balance the electricity needs of local communities."
- This section is repeated at least three times in this very long article. - Omegatron 02:37, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I ended up removing it, but there are probably other sections I missed. - Omegatron 19:01, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Needs More External Links
If I were the one to do it (had the knowledge), I would do it. I'm not lazy, just not up to speed enough. (My disclaimer)
This article needs more external links to help people keep current on the leading-edge developments, and also deepen their knowledge (if this article has whetted their appetite). For instance, a lot of high-school and college youth may read the article -- and need to know more.
Links could be technology-specific: wind energy, solar electric, geothermal, ocean thermal, hydrogen fuel, energy storage, etc.
If you know the sites, please add the links.
J.R.
Splitting of the article, move some material to Renewable energy development
Due to material overflow, I have moved the following material from Renewable energy to Renewable energy development w/o modification:
1 The renewable energy movement
1 Renewable energy today
2 Renewable energy use by nation
3 Renewable energy controversies 3.1 Lack of motivation for funding
4 Renewable energy support mechanisms 4.1 Tariff mechanisms 4.2 Quota mechanisms 4.3 Contract bidding mechanisms 4.4 Production tax credits
I copied also, w/o change:
5 External links
6 References
MGTom 20:43, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
Geothermal renewable
Geothermal is renewable. Those two links Pstudier provided don't prove much of anything, the first one just says "it's not strictly renewable compared with hydro", what does that mean exactly? Those articles are written by energy companies so it's no wonder they are using such words incorrectly. An energy flow can not "deplete" so we should remove deplete from the text in the article at the very least. To repeat what I put on Pstudier's talk page that he did not respond to at all: an individual source of geothermal energy may cool down or move across the surface of the earth but the overall energy released by the center of the earth remains unchanged, you have to look at the entire system to determine whether something depletes/is renewable. Think about it this way, does a specific volcano "deplete" lava when it cools down and goes extinct? Only resources can deplete, a direct source of energy like heat can move or turn off but depelte is the wrong word, and renewable is the right word. We should at least add a caveat to the article that states the most commonly accepted definition of geothermal is that it is renewable because renewable can also mean environmentally friendly. Geothermal is renewable in the same sense that sunlight is renewable, it's not renewable in the sense of biodiesel possibly being renewable (geothermal is an environmental friendly energy source, I agree it does not fit the other definition which is that of a cyclical organic process). zen master T 15:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Obsolete articles
There are currently articles on renewables, as I count them:
- Renewables:
- Wind power:
- Wind turbine, Wind power and Wind farm.
- Hydropower:
- Solar:
- Geothermal:
- Biomass:
We seem to be missing specific articles on Wave power (links to Tidal power for some reason) and Biomatter energy.
It seems to me that each (or most) of the Renewable sources listed in this article has its own page. Shouldn't this article then
- contain much less detail and
- simply list the Renewables and
- go on about general Renewable things?
I agree with the splitting up of this article into Renewable energy and Renewable energy development, but both could use some work.
The above was me, a few days ago. It's been changed.
Ec5618 08:58, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Wave power
Wave power currently links to Tidal power. This is a mistake since much wave power comes from the wind, not from the Moon. This is a large hole in Wikipedia's articles on renewable energy. Ultramarine 20:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Definately
- We could just create a stub, in place of the #redirect.
- Ec5618
Well, is the confusion perhaps because the technology to harness both is similar? Perhaps the tidal power article should make a clear distinction that the energy in some cases comes from the moon's gravity, and in some cases comes from wind. I think wave power perhaps deserves its own separate article. zen master T 20:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This has been bothering me for a while now. I'd like to create a stub, because I feel a stub would do Wave power more justice than a random redirect. Filling in the stub need hardly take long either.
- Ec5618
- I restored an earlier version that needs improvment. Ultramarine 21:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wind power
The following paragraph had many problems. I've tried to clean it up a bit. Here is the original, and my thoughts:
- While the winds don't die out when the sun sets, they do die down, and thus cannot be relied upon the generate continuous power. Some calculations suggest that 1000MW of wind generated electricity can replace just 300MW of continuous power. While this might change as technology evolves, advocates have suggested using wind power to pump water into reservoirs (see water power in this article), or power industrial applications that don't depend on a continuous electricity supply, like electrolysis.
- Wind strength does not decease at sunset (or we'd never have storms at night, trade winds etc).
- What calculations give 1000 MW of wind power as equivalent to 300 MW of continuous power? We need reliable figures from cited references here, or none at all, IMHO.
- Who seriously advocates a separate wind-power-based power-grid just for people who do industrial electrolysis and other equivalent processes? I'd love to read the reference for that! I guess, when the writer included pumping water with this, s/he meant it as a means of energy storage? --Nigelj 17:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Nigel, storms at night and trade winds are completely compatible with average wind power at night being lower than it is during the day. I don't know either way, but note that this page (http://www.energy.iastate.edu/renewable/wind/wem/wem-08_power.html) (which has some nice illustrations which could improve the Wind turbine page) explains why wind power is lower at night in *some* locations.
1000 MW of name-plate power on the turbine is worth about 300 MW of continuous power because wind turbines see duty factors of around 30%. If you look into it, you'll find this number varies a bit, but 30% is a pretty good middle.
Finally, you don't need a separate power grid for wind power. Think a bit. You run all the power generated across the same wires, but you turn on loads amenable to intermittent supply only when the wind turbines are generating that intermittent supply. This load modulation reduces the variation in the remaining supply. And yeah, pumped storage is the largest scale means of storing electrical energy, by at least one order of magnitude.
You can do better next time.
Iain McClatchie 05:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Limitations of wind power
Should some reference not be made to the limitations of wind power? After all, maximum harnessing of this energy source would radically alter the natural movement of the fluid atmospheric air across the world. There's only so much sunlight incident upon the planet, and thereby only so much wind energy to go around. Wind power is not a reasonable long-term solution to the impending energy shortage. --Dexter Speare 10:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- These assertions are, frankly, a little silly. An estimated 1 to 3 percent of the energy from the Sun are converted into wind energy. The Earth receives about 1020W/m². The Earth has a radius of about 6500km, which means it receives about 130 * 10^12 * 1020Watts of energy. That comes to about 133Petawatts of power, of which up to 3% is in the form of wind energy: 4Petawatts.
- Humanity currently use 15.29 trillion kWh (electrical), yearly. That comes to no more that 2 Terawatts of power. There's 2000 times more available. And wind power need never be the only source of electrical power. -- Ec5618 10:34, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Fischer-Tropsch process
Recent edits have made it look as though this process is the answer to the Peak oil problem. It is not, as it requires energy from another source. Someone should check for POV. Ec5618 added this comment (Sorry, yes, Ec5618)
- Why does this prevent Fischer-Tropsch from being part of the solution? The carbon and the energy could come from coal, of which there is a known supply for hundreds of years, or perhaps biomass, which is renewable. pstudier 22:31, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
For one, we don't need the Fischer-Topsch process to produce fuel. We don't need it to produce polymers either. We do need it to produce oil, should we want to. But we have no reason to do so. The Fischer-Topsch process is chemically interesting, but never economically viable to produce oils that can currently be pumped up out of the ground for less (in orders of magnitude). If Peak oil worked like this, I'd have stored crude oil somewhere, and would be patiently waiting for the prices to exceed 50 Euro/L.
Also; "This process was developed and used extensively in World War II by Germany", "This new technology (The Fischer-Tropsch process), may make limited resources , like oil, more widely available." Not only does the first quote basically contradict the second, the second doesn't even make sense. -- Ec5618 23:21, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, my real problem (first problem) was with the line: "However complex hydrocarbons can be readily manufactured using the Fischer-Tropsch process, thus possibly providing a solution to Peak Oil.", specifically with the words 'readily' and 'providing a solution'. Very much biased, surely. -- Ec5618 23:27, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think we should separate the hydrocarbon fuel problem from energy problem, so I removed the reference to peak oil. By the way, Sasol currently produces diesel from coal using Fischer-Tropsch, and claims to make a profit from it.