Talk:Renewable energy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Renewable energy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 9 months

Energy Top‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment: Sustainability Top‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment 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. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Sustainability task force.

Climate change Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Electrical engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Renewable energy was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 7, 2019). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Heat pump was copied or moved into Renewable energy with this edit on 19 Jun 2015 10:42. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Section sizes

Section size for Renewable energy (49 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	10,436	10,436
Overview	1,867	20,607
Definition	2,500	2,500
Role in addressing climate change	2,330	2,330
Other benefits	1,435	1,435
Intermittency	6,360	12,475
Electrical energy storage	3,128	3,128
Energy supply security	2,987	2,987
Mainstream technologies	1,680	44,485
Solar energy	4,749	11,658
Photovoltaics	5,619	5,619
Solar thermal	1,290	1,290
Wind power	5,332	5,332
Hydropower	9,426	9,426
Bioenergy	4,074	11,077
Biofuel	7,003	7,003
Geothermal energy	5,312	5,312
Emerging technologies	1,210	14,380
Enhanced geothermal systems	2,507	2,507
Marine energy	2,966	2,966
Earth infrared thermal radiation	990	990
Others	16	6,707
Algae fuels	444	444
Space-based solar power	1,001	1,001
Water vapor	651	651
Nuclear energy	2,192	2,192
Artificial photosynthesis	2,403	2,403
Market and industry trends	4,335	31,290
Usage by sector or application	4,855	4,855
Cost comparison	2,195	2,195
Growth of renewables	11,637	16,659
Future projections	5,022	5,022
Demand	1,892	1,892
Developing countries	1,354	1,354
Policy	6,479	6,479
Finance	3,666	3,666
Debates	172	22,936
Nuclear power proposed as renewable energy	222	222
Geopolitics	10,657	10,657
Metal and mineral extraction	5,684	5,684
Conservation areas	3,918	3,918
Recycling of solar panels	2,283	2,283
Society and culture	27	8,689
Public support	8,662	8,662
History	6,531	6,531
See also	472	472
References	30	3,425
Sources	3,395	3,395
External links	1,087	1,087
Total	174,483	174,483

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[crystalline silicon#Energy payback time|energy payback time]] The anchor (#Energy payback time) has been deleted by other users before.
[[Biofuels#Solid biofuels|solid]] The anchor (#Solid biofuels) has been deleted by other users before.
[[Biofuels#Biogas|gaseous]] The anchor (#Biogas) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Scope of the article?

Do you think Passive daytime radiative cooling is in scope?

Do you think hydrogen is in scope? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are outside of the scope and have removed those two sections now. EMsmile (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More excerpts?

Should we excerpt more here, either from main articles or from Sustainable energy which is a featured article, for example wind power? Might make it easier to keep up to date. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this suggestion. There is probably also a fair bit of content that should be moved to sub-articles. EMsmile (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

Solve the error in reference 3, please Graph8389 (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the error in ref 3? EMsmile (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a bit of culling? - Moving photovoltaic development?

I think the article is on the long side (50 kB (7750 words) "readable prose size"). Who has ideas in which sections some culling and condensing, or moving to sub-articles, could take place? For example, one section could be the one on solar power which is probably a bit too detailed now. Thoughts? EMsmile (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EMsmile and anyone else

Perhaps we could delete or move out the photovoltaic development subsection? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. Move it to one of the sub-articles, I'd say. I've also added the section size table at the top of the talk page now. It helps to identify which sections are perhaps too big and dominant compared to others. The section on hydropower also seems too long. EMsmile (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Chidgk1, and propose to move the entire section "photovoltaic development" to Photovoltaic system and probably add it to the lead (and main text) there. It seems more up to date than the text at Photovoltaic system which is older. Pinging User:Tserton as they recently worked on this section? EMsmile (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EMsmile! I definitely agree that the article could use some liberal trimming. There are bits and pieces of the "Photovoltaic development" section that are perhaps excessive detail for a general article about renewable energy, but I think there is lower-hanging fruit elsewhere in the article to cull. PV is one of the three main sources of renewable energy, and by far the fastest growing one, so I would argue it deserves a bit more space. I would instead start by significantly consolidating the bioenergy and geothermal sections. And some of the more speculative technologies could be reduced to a few sentences each, with content moved to the respective main articles if it's not already reproduced there. Tserton (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks for your trimming work! The article is now at 46 kB which is better. Its balance of topics is better now (see the section size table at the top to check). I've removed some detail on hydropower as I felt that section had become too long compared to the other sections. - What do you think of the lead section, could you give that also a review and check if it's a good summary of the main aspects of the article? EMsmile (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks likewise for your improvements to the article! Don't be bashful about copyediting the sections I've revamped, too, even if that means moving or removing some of my text. I often find it tricky to judge due weight with technical topics like the ones in some of this article's sections.

As for the lead, I actually think a lot of it could do with being re-written. I would focus on what/why/how, in that order (so a brief description/definition, mention of climate change, and an overview of the most important technologies)...and then perhaps a paragraph on the challenges facing renewables. Open to suggestions, of course! Tserton (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, always fun to have someone to collaborate with! Regarding the lead, I've copied your comments to the section below so that we have it all in one place. Have replied there. EMsmile (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements to the lead

I've done a bit of work on the lead. My original intention was only to work on readability aspects. But in the end, I also re-arranged the content a bit. I took out some of the number-heavy content and added instead some new content, e.g. by looking at the table of content to see which sections were not yet summarised. For example, there was no info in the lead on the ongoing debates nor on the emerging technologies which I have added now.

I am still not so happy with it: the lead is now a bit too long (519 words), perhaps bring it down to something in the range of 450 to 500? Also, the readability score is still quite low, many sentences are in red when using the readability script. Perhaps User:Efbrazil is interested to help with this lead as well, after we have been working on the lead of sustainable energy... EMsmile (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the lead, I actually think a lot of it could do with being re-written. I would focus on what/why/how, in that order (so a brief description/definition, mention of climate change, and an overview of the most important technologies)...and then perhaps a paragraph on the challenges facing renewables. Open to suggestions, of course! Tserton (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead does need some work but when you work on it please ensure it doesn't become a "new story on its own" but still remains as a summary of the article. It should try where possible to pick up the main content of the main section headings. And there should be nothing in the lead that is not also in the main text. A summary of the challenges (or debates) section would be very good (I've already tried to do that; it's currently in the last two paragraph).

I also think leads should include citations (I know this is regarded as optional; but due to the usage of excerpts in future, it's better if the lead does include citations). Also keep in mind WP:LEAD in case you are not aware of that manual of style (you probably know it as you've been around on Wikipedia for a long time!). Lead length could be 450 to 500 words, I'd say.

I think the first paragraph of the lead is actually fairly good. EMsmile (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]