Talk:Energy development/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Energy Storage

what about molten sodium as a short term storage for solar energy? Solar thermal seems to have been skipped for this article, as has solar lighting

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/business/16thermal.html?ex=1342324800&en=0a7ab4688d71abee&ei=5088&

LetterRip 01:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Geothermal Con & and a suggestion

1. I understand that the heat in the rocks on a site could be depleted. Can someone confirm or deny that?
and off-topic:
2. On (kinda) using lightning: Would be feasible to have an ballon/airship high in to the air and use the voltage difference between that altitude and the ground? Wouldn't the air masses moving by generate electricity by friction? GeoAtreides 15:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Solar Energy

I removed this statement as disputed.

• While vast amounts of energy arrive from the sun each second, most of it is not in a form that humans can easily use.

Nearly all sources in use are solar. Wind, fossil, biomass, hydro etc. Only geothermal and nuclear are not. Perhaps you mean photovoltaic? Hawstom 19:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Tidal energy isn't particularly derived from solar energy, either. --Wtshymanski 15:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Solar gravity? - Hard Raspy Sci 16:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Reading list

Energy at the Crossroads: Global Perspectives and Uncertainties. by Vaclav Smil, MIT Press:2003.

• Nature published a glowing review of this book in volume 428, page 469 (1 Apr 2004). It addresses issues of energy consumption, production and the trade-offs we make with each of them. AdamRetchless 01:14, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Found a useful review of Smil: [| Office of foreign affairs on Vaclav Smil] MGTom 02:32, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

I've read this book by Smil, and it is truly a landmark. It goes into a great deal of detail about current an prospective energy sources. He's very precise with numbers and units, and puts issues in fresh perspective in sometimes surprising ways. Anyone interested in the topic of this page and willing to put the time in should try to get their hands on this book.74.98.84.29 22:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Units?

This statement is certainly false: "In the week of August 3rd 2003, the US set an all-time national record for electricity use of 90,000 gigawatts." Do you mean gigawatt-hours? pstudier 01:46, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

This is why references are important. If it's a peak power level, the per-capita power is around 300 kW which seems too high by about two orders of magnitude. --Wtshymanski 15:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Redundancy

The section Current State and Goals is pretty much the same as Alternatives to oil but behind in topic development to the latter. Propose simply linking to the latter instead or creating a separate page dealing with this issue for both topics. Amadeust 22:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agree there is a problem. But I think probably the Hubbert Peak material should be moved here, to the more general article. Tom - Talk 23:50, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Creation of Future energy development

Moved the sections relevant to a new page, future energy development and tried to merge with the parts of Hubbert Peak that discussed the same area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquamarine (talk • contribs) 16:11, 12 December 2004

Future energy development has been tagged merge. Please add any discussion there. 199.125.109.56 15:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Both merge tags point here, the discussion about the merge appears to be missing, but it should be here. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Introductory definition

I have expanded the itroductory definition, to lay out the broad scope of the subject. MGTom 02:14, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

This is a high level article and will probably be worked on for a while.

I have introduced concepts, stil in "red", of primary, secondary, final and useful energies that still need separate articles (otherwise linked to Energy balance, w/o a direct link here). MGTom 02:14, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Introduced the concept of society that may be expanded to presentation of different patterns of energy use in societies, and different competitve strategies (to grab more energy, to make better use of energy ...). Such presentation will be elsewhere, now does not exist. MGTom 02:14, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Quantity vs. quality is important, that is relation to efficieny. MGTom 02:14, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Energy futures I have illustrated with historic, possibly interesting links for the browser, to Malthus and Limits to Growth, and also energy crisis issues. MGTom 02:14, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Energy development strategies are important on the short and long run. There is considerable material on which we can report. MGTom 02:14, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Dependency of humans

The replaced paragraph is still in source, as comment and may be easily reused in possibly modified form.

I have shifted the view from fully antrophocentric one, by recognising the need for energy of other species.

The question of abundant energy versus needed energy and what that means is not fully exposed, but has to be approached. MGTom 02:24, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

The last paragraph mentions output of each society. This sets the scene for addressing the question "why use more energy?" that can be followed in this article or elsewhere. MGTom 02:24, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Intro

The first paragraph is unreadable in the context of what we expect from an encyclopedia, and I think it probably has some incomplete thoughts and maybe too much detail for an introduction. If I could decipher it, I would. As a civil engineer, I would expect I would be able to understand every word of this article. As it is, I am going to do my best to make it more readable and informative. Tom H. 18:47, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Good edits! Thank you for positive action! MGTom 08:34, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

Project page

Please add Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy development to your Watchlists and participate in any polls there. Thanks in advance. We really need some additional input. We are kind of at a standstill on some issues. Tom Haws 05:49, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear waste

I've just edited the page to take the estimate of the period of time it takes for unprocessed fuel rods to decay to the level of the original ore body from one hindred thousand years (it didn't even say up to) to one to three thousand years. The longer period, I'm afraid, is an urban myth that probably comes from misunderstanding of what half life means.

The one to three thousand years is for a current PWR or BWR, and depends on the exact fuel technology. Other technologies have shorter crossover periods, i.e. the PWR/BWR without reprocessing is the worst fuel cycle yet developed so far as the waste disposal goes, but at this point in history it's also the cheapest (surprise surprise) so it's likely to be with us for a while yet.

The FBR in theory can get it down to about 70 years, using maximum recycling of transuranics, but that's currently a relatively expensive technology.

Fusion power has no such crossover period, as the fuel isn't radioactive, so the radioactivity is new. The ITER proponents are committed to developing lining materials that don't pose a significant radiological hazard, but as they don't expect to have a commercial plant until the 22nd century, those making these promises won't be around to fulfill them. Failing this development, the disposal of the irradiated lining material of a fusion plant could be a far bigger problem than the disposal of spent fission reactor fuel. Andrewa 03:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Cost of extreme weather graph

The cost of extreme weather is rising rapidly and could reach 350 billion 2001 U.S. dollars per year by 2025. source data: IPCC, 2001. Some of the cost increase is due to added exposure such as building on the coast, and some of it is due to radiative forcing by greenhouse gasses from fossil fuel.

This graph was removed. I have found more current data and will be replacing it. See the link to Talk:Global_warming on the graph's discussion page. —James S. 05:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

...and geothermal energy, are nuclear in origin??

Huh?? I think the Energy Sources section needs some work. - Hard Raspy Sci 16:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Historic energy development schemes

Human societies have relied and currently rely on various energy development schemes. Schemes that are most powerful are considered in the energy development field to be more advanced in that they contribute better to human comfort and freedom. As humans and societies move from more primitive energy development schemes to more advanced ones, it is typically said from an energy development point of view that they are advancing because the energy limits on comfort and freedom are shrinking. Sources and technologies in this section are presented in order of increasing energy development.

This seems to be introducing some non-existent content, and is also very confusing. I guess I'll just park this here in case someone was intending on improving and completing it. -- Beland 04:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wind Cons

"One wind turbine usually generates less than ten megawatts of electricity, much less than most power plants. A field of wind towers, called a wind farm, is necessary for commercial generation." I fail to see how this is a con. Coal plants require about 100 coal cars per day of stripmined coal to operate. A wind farm takes up less than 5% of the land in a wind farm, including service roads, and agriculture continues to flourish when a [array is added to a farm]. I don't see any reason to continue keeping this as a con. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyemoor (talk • contribs)

Yes, it's not a pro or a con, it's just a fact. Other cons of wind are cancelled out by having a wind farm too (e.g. it then produces enough electricity, and reliability of wind is averaged out across a large number of generators and so it becomes reliable enough for baseload power generation). Certainly what you've stated can be mentioned as a "con" of coal. And so the whole pro and con thing gets rather tedious and silly. �Pengo 02:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Pros and Cons

Why are all these reporoduced in this article when they are in the relvant daughter articles? The over used of subheadings makes the TOC huge, if they have to be here, couldn't they be written in prose?--Peta 08:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point that they are generally captured in the relevant daughter articles, though having the overview here helps people to get a better sense that jumping back and forth between many articles. I agree prose could help with the TOC, though being right justified minimizes the impact. Skyemoor 12:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole pro-and-con thing is rather tedious and childish on this article. �Pengo 02:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Details on removing 90,000 GW from 2003 August 3 electric grid blackout subsection.

90,000 GW would be 90 TW, a huge number, and that's only electric energy. Photosynthesis, that is all life on our planet currently functions at about 100 TW total capacity, even though we receive some 180000 TW of solar radiation, but life is only 0.1% efficient extracting it, plus there is atmospheric reflection, deserts, not all sunlight falls onto a green leaf. 90 TW electric seemed just a huge number. The site cited in the page, [1] lists capacities in MW, and if you add them up, they are a few hundred thousand megawatts, or a few hundred gigawatts, nowhere near 90,000. US overall energy consumption is about a quarter of the world's 13 TW, about 3 TW, out of which electric is only 978 GW or 0.978 TW. I got that 978 number [from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html] capacity subsection. I'm assuming the real peak record was 900 GW, not 90,000, even though this site [2] cites 90,000, which I assume was the source of the error. This page also says

"Texas, with a population of 25 million, set an all time record of 60,000 Gigawatts just a week before the blackout. The difference is that except for one tiny line running into Arkansas, Texas is self-contained for electricity. It's not tied to any other users. As we saw on Black Thursday, Ottawa was part of a whole interlocking system that had no place to go but down."

I had no clue Texas was so isolated and self contained, I guess it's ready to secede any time. But looking at the [3] which does list Texas you can see that the current, 2006 potential generating capacity is at 70000 MW, and not GW. So that's consistent with the error on that page, I assume all GW's there were MW. I trust .gov sites better, but still, I'm reluctant to just simply put up the 900 number, or any number without actually knowing what it was.So, what's the record US electric consumption? 762 GW? 901 GW? Can anybody find that number? It's definitely not 90,000 GW, but it's also not 90,000 MW, unless we're talking about the northeast electric grid block on it's own that had the blackout, not the whole US. Sillybilly 22:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I removed the sentence completely. As you say, it apparently used the Simmons interview [4] as its source. A transcript of a telephone interview is not what I would consider a credible source. As you pointed out, the 90,000/60,000 GW numbers are ridiculous. In addition, the fact that the interview took place in August, 2003, makes any reference to Aug 3 2003 as "an all-time high" very suspect. U.S. electricity consumption increases every year: every July or August probably breaks a record. InNuce 19:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Lightning harvesting - Reasoning behind removing it

Besides the technical difficulties of having devices that withstand lightning damage and store the lightning energy at the same time, I set out to find out how much energy is available in the form of lightning. [ http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/mag/network-add.shtml] says there are about 15 million lightning flashes per year for the entire area of USA. [ http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch14/bgdocs/b14s03.pdf] says that "Assuming an average stroke length of 5 km and mean energy dissipation per unit length per stroke of 1.5x10 4 J/meter" and also "The first stroke in a flash generally dissipates the largest amount of energy, with subsequent strokes dissipating approximately 75% less energy than the first stroke.5 This estimate provides a factor of 1.75 to scale up the estimate of emissions from the first lightning stroke to an estimate of the entire lightning flash." Also "The number of strokes in a lightning flash varies, depending on latitude. Values range from 1.9 strokes for cloud to ground flashes up to 6 strokes for intracloud flashes. The global average is estimated to be 4 strokes per flash."

So we play with these assumptions, and get 15 kJ/meter lighning x 5000 meter total length x 1.75 energy factor for the 4 flashes average through the same lightning channel gives 75 MJ*1.75=131 MJ/lightning flash. Gasoline contains about 46 MJ/kg, so 1 lightning flash contains the equivalent of about 2.85 kg of gasoline in energy content. There are about 15 million flashes (I'm assuming intra-cloud and cloud to ground) in the US per year, so this would give about 131 MJ*15E6=1965000000 MJ, or 1,965,000 GJ total energy each year for the territory of the US. Dividing this by seconds to convert to GW, there are 365*24*60*60 seconds in a year = 31536000 seconds, gives 0.0623 GW equivalent, or about 62 MW power happening in lightning averaged for the whole year. To compare, the US uses about 3000 GW total energy (3000 gigajoules each second average, for every second of the year). So based on such calculations even if all the lighning were harvested it would only provide about 0.06 GW out of the total 3000 GW used.

Searching for the voltage in a lightning - The lightning page in wikipedia says "An average bolt of negative lightning carries a current of 30-to-50 kiloamperes (kA), although some bolts can be up to 120kA, and transfers a charge of 5 coulombs and 500 megajoules (enough to light a 100 watt light bulb for 2 months). " with citation needed. That's in the ballpark of the 131 MJ/lightning flash estimate, so factoring up, 500/131*.00623 gives 0.238 GW total lighning energy. Suppose the lightning carries 5 coulombs as 50 kA for 500 MJ, giving 5C/50,000 A(=C/second)=0.0001 second, or 0.1 ms total time, 500 MJ/0.0001 s=5,000,000 MW, or 5000 GW (not unreasonable considering the short timespan), so the voltage is V=P/I=5000 GW/50 kA =100,000,000 V. You would basically need a capacitor able to store 100 million volts.

[ http://howthingswork.virginia.edu/page1.php?QNum=1443] has a discussion on efficiency of lightning collection, saying that if you can capture only 1% of the voltage, you only capture 1% of energy.

[ http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-15163.html] has an even better discussion:

"A capacitor is more natural for catching the charge than an inductor.

Pretend you had a 10 KiloFarad capacitor that could survive being hit. If it got hit by a 10 KiloAmp bolt that lasted one second, it would be charged to one volt on it's terminals, since Q = CV.

The energy in such a capacitor would only be 1/2 C V*V = 5K Joules.

This shows that the enormous power in a bolt is the product of that large current and the high voltage that it falls through which is millions of volts.

"OK", you say. "I'll charge a 1 Farad capacitor instead. That will leave me with a lot of Volts." In this case, the cap will get up to 10 KV. Now the energy is 1/2 * 1 * 10K*10K = 50 MegaJoules. This is more like it.

The rest is a matter of simple engineering to make a capacitor that will not be destroyed when charged for one second with 50 Megawatts of power. Simple. :eek:" - posted by user Antiphon

Doing the same calculation for 5 coulombs and varying the C to get different V, 10 kiloFarad would give V=Q/C=5/10,000=.0005 V. Picking a 1 farad capacitor would give 5 Volts. Basically anytime you charge a capacitor to capture the energy, most of the voltage drop and resistive heating is wasted through the atmosphere, and you end up capturing very little energy from the lightning strike. So even if there is some energy from lightning, it's nowhere near enough to make a dent in the energy needs of people, and then you can't even harvest it in the first place. A much better idea would be tapping lightning poles that continuously extract charge at high voltage from the atmosphere and only have a little bit of St. Elmo's fire at the tip that wastes energy. What the estimates for energy would be I don't think it's on the internet for now. So you can only capture say 5 Kjoules of energy from the 130 MJ or 500 MJ with a capacitor because you cannot handle or store charge at 100 million volts. Another option as someone else said is have a ball of metal heat up, and then use the heat in a steam engine - this type of harvesting might be more efficient than direct electric harvesting, but it would be very random, the metal ball would either heat up little bit, or heat up too much and evaporate. The lightning page says that the temperature inside a lightning bolt is 5 times hotter than the surface of the Sun, about 28000 degrees Celsius, so it's not hard to imagine everything getting vaporized if you try to capture all the energy in a lightning. . So I deleted that section, in view of this discussion. Sillybilly 12:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hydrogen Pollution?

I am most definately not an expert in this area of science, but it seems kind of obvious that hydrogen does in a way contribute to "global warming". With the release of water vapor, it acts just as well as any other pollutant in the atmosphere. Then again, I am just starting my research, but doesnt an increased amount of water vapor in the atmosphere trap heat? And shouldn't that increase the natural water cycle? Theoretically, we could be commiting a global suicide by using hydrogen powered cars. I do say theoretically, because my facts are basic and made from inferences. I read some guy's report on how global warming is natural. In his report, he said the 98% of the "pollutants" in our atmosphere is water vapor. He of course was arguing that it is a natural process, but I though at that moment, "Maybe we don't think water vapor is dangerous because we believe that it is naturally caused by the sun's rays. So we dismiss it as a natural process, and continue to use hydrogen powered cars or whatever. But they add to the natural amounts of water vapor in the air, causing more heat to be trapped in the lower atmosphere, warming the planet. Because of the increased tmperature, more water evaporates, and is added to the atmosphere. It will become a never ending cycle until we all fry." Thats what I thought, but I have been wrong before. Please share your knoweledge and ease my worries.

--Sacor1192 02:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, but water vapour is quickly removed from the atmosphere unlike CO2. Even if it wasn't, anything is better than fossil fuels. 86.149.81.77 11:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Water vapor doesn't contribute to MAN-MADE global warming. The Earth has a natural greenhouse effect that keeps the earth warm. There can only be so much water in the air (known as saturation). There can be just about unlimited amounts of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. Here's as good of an explanation as you can find: http://thethoughtsontheworld.blogspot.com/2007/03/nuclear-power-energy-of-future-or-as.html

Worldthoughts 00:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hydrogen production

Isn't there a another method of hydrogen production: algae? It was in New Scientist ages ago: [5] and I'm sure there's been development since then. Can I add it? 86.149.81.77 11:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure you can add it, though it is mentioned already in the Hydrogen production article and actually has a whole article of its own: Biological hydrogen production (Algae). �Pengo 01:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Is hydrogen a source of Energy ?

I have reverted the edit by 71.163.29.45 of 05.07, 16 June in which the writer deleted the whole section "Hydrogen" with an edit summary (I paraphrase) "Hydrogen is not an energy source so should not be here". I agree that when hydrogen is produced by, for example hydrolosis, it is a secondary energy source, but as hydrogen is a naturally occurring element it may properly be defined as a primary energy source within the context of the Article.
Perhaps a new article "Hydrogen fuel" or similar title is indicated.Geoffrey Wickham 06:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No, hydrogen is not a source of energy. You can't spend less energy finding this most common element than you would get from it. All the other sources have at least demo systems producing energy. Nobody can find hydrogen in nature and produce energy from it. It should be removed from "sources". It is find in transportation or storage, but it is not a source of energy. Vincecate 09:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Vincecate your point is valid. As section 3.7 of the Article is quite thorough I suggest it would be a shame to lose it all by deletion at this time. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of Wikipedia procedures than I have could shift the entire text of 3.7 to a new Article with the same heading "Hydrogen fuel". CheersGeoffrey Wickham 02:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There is already a Hydrogen economy that goes into all these issues in great detail. So I don't think anything would be lost by removing it from energy sources. The detail could also be moved to transportation or storage here if you want to keep it in this article too. Vincecate 15:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source. — Omegatron 22:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems we have consensus to remove it from the energy source section. Agreed? Vincecate 00:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree.Geoffrey Wickham 03:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

3,700,000,000,000

This number is given for the 'typical CO2-production of a coal power plant'. The source link does not work. 3,700,000,000,000 tons of CO2 would require approximately 3,700,000,000,000 tons of carbon/coal. That is 3,700,000,000,000 cubic meters or a cube of 15.3 km on each side (as coal has approx. 1 ton/cubic meter). Come on, those numbers are obviously wrong. Even if they are for a lifetime of a plant and not for a year (as there is no hint toward the time span...) In my oppinion, 4 000 000 tons of coal are typical for a 400MW coal power plant. Per year that is.

I can only assume, that the other numbers in that paragraph are also wrong. (10 000 tons of sulfur? wow.... I mean...) �The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.35.72.38 (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Ok, I forgot to figure in the O2, so you could tripple that number for mass of CO2. But not much more...

According to Coal#Coal as fuel: World coal consumption is about 5,800 million short tons (5.3 petagrams) annually, of which about 75% is used for the production of electricity. Coal#Composition says: Carbon forms more than 50 percent by weight and more than 70 percent by volume of coal (this includes inherent moisture). This is dependent on coal rank, with higher rank coals containing less hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, until 95% purity of carbon is achieved at Anthracite rank and above. Greenhouse gas#Anthropogenic greenhouse gases shows a graphic indicating the percentage of greenhouse gas emission from various sources, but not the total numbers. Image:Carbon Emission by Region.png shows the USA and Canada emitting about 1.6 billion metric tons of carbon per year (from all sources, but this would primarily be from coal and petroleum combustion). It sounds like the "3,700,000,000,000 (3.7 trillion rather than billion) tons of CO2" figure probably refers to global emissions of CO2 from coal-fired power plants, and contains a factor of 1,000 error that increased it from billions to trillions. There also seems to be a now-broken reference tag near the erroneous figure. Time to Google for some reasonable emissions figures for one typical coal-fired power plant and work them into the article. --Teratornis 01:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So, who has a documented number for the amount of CO2 released by coal power plants?

NEI (http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=346) suggests nuclear power prevents release of 700 million metric tons per year in the US. Knowing nuclear power contributes about 20% of electricity in US and coal is about 50% of electricity in US, we could estimate that (50/20)*700 = 1750 million metric tons of CO2 are released by all coal power plants in US each year. Major assumption being that all the other electricity sources release same rate of CO2 (clearly the 10% or less of "clean" sources of energy do not release CO2).

An article by Patrick Moore (http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:7Y9oloeV6jIJ:www.mercurynews.com/perspective/ci_5301863+%22a+green+case%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us) suggests that "the 600-plus coal-fired plants emit nearly 2 billion tons of CO2 annually." This figure is somewhat consistent with my 1.75 billion MT estimate. Note also it is unclear if Moore is referring to MT or short tons. Turkishlava 23:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Wave vs. Tidal

Aren't wave and tidal the same thing? If so, then why are there 2 separate sections in the article? Otingocni 04:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the article says under the Wave power section: "It should not be confused with Tidal power, which involves construction of a dam or "power tower".

Since there are also separate and very different main articles on Wave power and Tidal power it seems the two aren't the same thing. -- Siobhan Hansa 14:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Waves go up and down with periods like 10 seconds and are caused by the Wind. Tides go up and down with a 12 hour period and are caused by the Moon. Very different things really, and the way you would get energy from them are very different too. The tidal wave is a bad name for a tsunami and not related to tides or energy development. Vincecate 16:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Tidal slows Earths rotation

I've added {{Fact}} to the first con in the Tidal section. Is it true that all energy produced from tidal generation results in an equal loss of the earth's rotational energy? I was under the impression that tides were the result of gravity in the Lunar-Earth system. If anything it seems to me that this gravitational interplay is what changes the Lunar orbit and Earths rotation. If the Earth had no water and no ocean tides this effect would remain the same. Strictly speaking land masses should also experience tidal effects to a far lesser degree since water is far more fluid. So how can drawing power from tides consumes the earth's rotational inertia any more than when tides encounter continents? I could be entirely off base here but it doesn't quite seem right to me, I'd like to see a citation. --D0li0 02:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the energy has to come from someplace, there is no free lunch. Normally the energy taken from the Earth's rotation by the tides goes into lifting the Moon about 2 inches higher each year. If there was no ocean this effect would not remain the same. See http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/33/33.html for an explanation. I think how much tidal energy harvesting reduces the amount going to the moon and how much it increases the amount taken from the Earth would depend on how it was done. For example, if you were out in the middle of the ocean where there normally was not any energy loss, you could increase the total energy taken from the Earth. Vincecate 11:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fusion energy

Shouldn't Fusion energy be added to the page as a section, since it is a possible source of renewable energy in the future that is in development? Or is this page only for energy sources already in Use? --147.31.184.88 12:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear fusion as an energy source is speculative. Only if and when the process is demonstrated as practical should it be referred to in the article.Geoffrey Wickham 01:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Not true. It needs to be included. While it is unlikely that it will ever be used for terrestrial sources it is being developed and should be included as such. It is actually coming along quite well. The amount of power able to be produced already is very significant, although the research reactors do not seem to want to get into the business of selling power and therefor do not have any provision for putting power onto the grid. 199.125.109.56 15:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wind cons

"The effect of large scale wind farms on the climate is unknown, just as the effect of buildings, other manmade structures, and agricultural windbreaks have unknown effects on the climate through the extraction of energy from the prevailing wind." Really? Extraction of energy from the prevailing wind? Somebody cite this please, because it sounds, well, entirely made up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.207.7.241 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 29 June 2007

Geothermal cons

"Geothermal energy is not renewable." Okay, that's technically true in some wierd, alternate geo-chemistry universe. But in that universe, fossil fuels are renewable. The terms renewable and nonrenewable, as applied to sources of energy, refer to a multi-generational, human time scale, not geologic time. I'm deleting it. Envirocorrector 12:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Envirocorrector

Let's stay with the technically true. The sun is an energy source on a geologic time scale, by your argument we should delete 'solar'.Geoffrey Wickham 23:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There is obviously some difference of opinion about this issue. So we can't just simply say geothermal energy is renewable or non-renewable, we need to reference verifiable sources and describe the debate. This is what one Australian newspaper report had to say...

"Because the heat used in the process is eventually replaced by the earth, the energy source has been classified as renewable energy by the International Energy Agency and the Australian Greenhouse Office."[6]

Thank you to the above for your interest and contribution. It is helpful if in future you sign your edit with 4 tildes so we know who is contributing without having to go back & click 'history'. Your edit is useful in resolving whether or not 'geothermal' should be classified as 'renewable' as a definition within this encyclopedic entry. The technical argument is that geothermal is not renewable energy because it has a finite quantity which cannot be 'renewed'. However, Wikipedia requires only that a reliable verifiable source for any claim or statement is cited. While not explicitly required, it is to the betterment of an article if the quality of a source is examined before citing it. A statement within an article written by a journalist and published in "The Australian" is verifiable and possibly reliable as the journalist cites the "International Energy Agency". It would be good if the "IEA" source is linked to the statement, in which case 'non renewable' may be published without question under Wikipedia rules.(I've tried to find that source without success). Live happily, go kindly.124.176.132.212 04:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC) My log-in dropped out while editing.Geoffrey Wickham 04:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Link Suggestions

Here are a few energy resources that may be considered for this page's external links... thanks!

http://www.AEoogle.com - Alternative energy search engine.

http://www.energyplanet.info - Energy web directory and blog.

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info - Energy articles, forums, news and videos.

LPG edits

Recent edits to add specific mention of LPG look a little like undue weight to me (see these additions, I added some clean up). Is it really appropriate to call out LPG from natural gas in this way? Also, we make a lot of factual claims in this article but provide few references for them - surely this stuff has been published in decent journals. -- SiobhanHansa 13:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR vs WP:VERIFIABILITY vs WP:SOAPBOX vs WP:NPOV vs WP:MOS etc

user escientist went ballistic on me because i reverted his additions to the article. the basis was clear - some of it was POV, some of it had typos, most of it had no citations, and of the two citations that were proferred, neither supported the contention the editor made in the article text. escientist attacked me in the most over-the-top uncivil terms, but i stand by my reversions of material based upon the headline of this new section. i've just now reverted again the additions he made *after* i explained my rationale to him in detail, but which he's not seen fit to fix. just a general fyi. Anastrophe (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Tidal power - Thanks to Wtshymanski for reversing Anastrophe's obviously biased editing

If Fusion power is in, and there are no commercial Fusion power examples, then Tidal power, which does have working commercial examples should be fairly included also Escientist (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

your attacks are inappropriate. please review WP:AGF. it is uncivil an uncool to be attacking another editor on talk pages. Anastrophe (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy correction undeleted

Under "Solar power pros" the bullets:

• Solar power imparts no fuel costs

and

• Requires no fuel

are clearly redundant

I merely deleted the second duplicate bullet point, and then an editor (on a vendetta?) deleted my change, and other valid comments on this talk: page.

When an anonymous “volunteer” editor spends over 60 hours a week (as documented by History) doing such things, who is paying them to insert their bias into Wikipedia, and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Escientist (talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

your incivility is becoming a serious problem. please stop implying motive. i'm unable to find this particular edit you're referencing. can you please link to the specific diff? thank you. also, please remember to sign your contributions. Anastrophe (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Environmental technology template

I'd like to replace the Environmental technology template with one that matches the standard navbox style, i.e. horizontal instead of vertical, collapsing and typically placed at the bottom of article pages. I've done a mock up of what this would look like at {{User:Jwanders/ET}}. Figured this was a big enough change that I should post before going ahead with it. Please discuss here--jwanders^Talk 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Future energy development

I removed thies from the nuclear section,and thers no place alse were in the article,what are they supoed to mean?That only nuclear can fix the problems of the developing world?

Developing nations also use less total energy per capita. FSU/EE stands for Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Source: EIA.

Developing nations use their energy less efficiently than developed nation, getting less GDP for the same amount of energy. One important cause is old technology. Notable is the very low energy efficiency in the former communist states. Source: EIA.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.82.47.118 (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The remainder of the former future energy development article has been copied over to this section. If anything was missed please add it. If anything can be deleted, please do so. 199.125.109.38 (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Tidal Energy Claim of www.gewp.org

I am conflicted to edit on this topic. Could another WP editor with a backgroud in physics take a look at the calculation on www.gewp.org , and either confirm, refine, or disprove? This is the claim, expressed on the website and backed by a "rough calculation": We propose to use a ship-based energy conversion device that transduces tidal forces via buoyancy to energy and obviates the need for all other power generation on Earth. It would be informative to see the calculation reproduced elsewhere and referenced here - if correct. At the risk of being too bold as a new WP editor, gewp.org now states that: Within the first 24 hours of operation, this website had visitors from 40 different countries. I again request that a WP editor look for a confirmation of the calculation, or better yet, reference the physics to an older source within this section. Nukeh (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Tone

This article seems to have a confusing tone. Maybe it needs cleanup...

The DarkArcher was here (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Energy vs. electric energy

Is it just me, or does this article seems to be somewhat heavily emphasising electrical energy?--Alf 06:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

If you've got a new means of getting energy through your plug I'd love to hear it62.232.4.58 (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Increasing Decreasing energy consumption

- This image is really cool, I think having an image showing increase and decreasing power consumption based on amount is cool. That being said, it's really hard to understand. The color key is not very big, not well explained, and even after looking at it for 5 mins I'm still not sure I understand it correctly. I think it needs to be redone so that it's easier to understand.--Sparkygravity (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. While a neat idea, I don't think you can properly convey two ideas on the same map. I think two maps should be used instead, one showing rate of change and the other use per capita. TastyCakes (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Energy Resilience

The reference given for the first paragraph found today in this section labels itself a blog (see the very bottom border), and in any event much of the text does not come from the reference (although some sentences were copied directly from it).

The second paragraph is a self-published page, therefore a WP:RS problem (as I found out when I tried to quote from it in Pembina Institute). Simesa (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger of nuclear Pros/Cons with Nuclear Power's Debate section

Back in 2005, it was decided not to have a nuclear power controversy or debate on nuclear power article. Instead, that debate is now in an extensive section in Nuclear power#Debate on nuclear power. It seems more appropriate to have that debate complete in that article, and reference it everywhere else, rather than have three separate articles with their own debates (Anti-nuclear movement is the third article involved). I plan to eventually merge the three sections, but wanted everyone to have a chance to comment first - give it, say, a week? Simesa (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I did the merge just now. It completes all the merges from various articles that needed to be done. Simesa (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Propose Moving Biofuels section

I propose that we move biofuels section to underneath fossil fuels section. Given that fossil fuels are the remains of old plant life it makes more sense. Anyone objecting to this should say so now before I move it. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I object, as every energy source could conceivably be said to be solar in nature, so why not move everything under solar? Put your comments at the bottom of the talk page, which is the progression of talk pages. --Skyemoor (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying is that if you look at the environmental issues with biofuels, for example when you look at the Aral Sea, it doesn't really fit in with the rest of the renewables. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree there are many serious issues with biofuels, but they are not fossil fuels, so classifying them as such would be inappropriate.--Skyemoor (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Higher energy use for education?

The following is WP:SYN, "Higher electricity use per capita correlates with a higher score on the Human Development Index (1997). Developing nations score much lower on these variables than developed nations. The continued rapid economic growth and increase in living standards in developing nations with large populations, like China and India, is dependent on a rapid and large expansion of energy production capacity." There are far more factors involved, and correlation does not imply causation. To be NPOV, many other kinds of graphs would be required, including pollution levels, resource depletion, global warming, etc. --Skyemoor (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Besides, the statements are WP:OR. --Skyemoor (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

about fossil fuels

Isn't peak oil about as real as the "North american union" (as in, completely made up)? Huge reserves have been found in Brazil, and I have heard about some being found in the USA and Albania not to long ago. The increase in costs is a combination of increased demand from the developing world and greedy OPEC nations/oil companies using instability in the middle ease as an excuse to get more money. Contralya (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

For every 1 barrel found we use about 7, and that is increasing as the more easily exploitable fields are depleted. I'm sure its all the greedy arabs fault but I think it may be a bad idea to rely on a magically unlimited supply of oil.62.232.4.58 (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No one (or at least very few people) believes oil will last indefinitely. The question, therefore, is not if "peak oil" will occur but when. Whether it's imminent or decades into the future, I don't think anyone really knows for sure. The reserve growth you mentioned were significant, however for some time now we have not been finding more reserves at the rate we use them at. There's still something like 1.2 trillion barrels of oil labeled "probable" in the world, we just aren't adding to that number faster than we take away from it, as was the case until at least the 70s, I think. There are huge "unconventional" sources, such as the Athabasca Oil Sands and oil shales, but it is logistically, financially and environmentally challenging to extract these in quantities enough to make up for a serious decline in conventional oil. TastyCakes (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

IEA has published an updated World Energy Outlook for 2008. This agency has always been on the optimistic side, so a drop from projected reserves for 2030 of 1.2 trillion to 1.04 is significant. Here is their summary:

"World oil production, net of processing gains, is projected to rise from 82 mb/d in 2007 to 104 mb/d in 2030 in the Reference Scenario. Although global oil production in total is not expected to peak before 2030, production of conventional crude oil and natural gas liquids (NGLs) is projected to level off towards the end of the projection period. Conventional crude oil production alone increases only modestly over 2007-2030 – by 5 mb/d – as almost all the additional capacity from new oilfields is offset by declines in output at existing fields. The bulk of the net increase in total oil production comes from NGLs (driven by the relatively rapid expansion in gas supply) and from non-conventional resources and technologies, notably Canadian oil sands." http://www.iea.org/weo/docs/weo2008/fact_sheets_08.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoebebright (talk • contribs) 13:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Phoebebright (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC).

Energy Density

The following statement is incorrect, "Limited energy density: Average daily insolation in the contiguous U.S. is 3–7 kW·h/m²". The units are not a measure of energy density. --Skyemoor (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The statement apparently refers to kW·h/m²/day, which is a unit of areal power density. Thus the sentence should begin with "Limited areal power density:". --Teratornis (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Solar Power Satellites

As alternative energy sources are covered with this article, could a link to Solar Power Satellites be included in the "See also" section? Or maybe even include a prose description of this in the section on "Future Energy Development"? - Caseyd314 (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The article title is Energy development, not Energy speculation. Nobody is developing the SPS idea today, nor is anyone in any position of significant authority even contemplating developing it for the next several decades. The idea doesn't make sense as long as we have vast, sunny deserts on earth going to waste, not to mention enormous untapped wind resources that are on schedule to get developed before large-scale terrestrial solar power (because wind power is cheaper than solar power today, and is likely to remain cheaper for years to come). Maybe when North Dakota is covered with wind turbines, and the Sahara desert is covered with solar cells, then someone might think about launching SPS into space. --Teratornis (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I can think of no reason not to have a separate summary article about speculative future energy sources. --Teratornis (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think if anywhere SPSs would fit into the Future energy development section. However, I think this section already has some serious crystal ball issues, and while SPS is no more out there than fusion power and artificial photosynthesis which are in the section now, I think this is more a case of them being inappropriate for the article as well. The section also classifies certain technologies as "promising" and is unabashedly speculative on some points (eg "The peaking of world hydrocarbon production (Peak oil) may test Malthus critics"). I think the section should mention only forecasts made by reputable organisations (such as the IEA or the DOE), concerns regarding alternatives for oil and should remove all but the briefest mentions of speculative technologies (ie methods that have not yet produced any electricity for consumption, which would include fusion, SPS etc). The bit about the green revolution and perpetual motion machines also seem superfluous. TastyCakes (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Fossil fuel vs compost

I wonder if the statement that fossil fuels are "remains of the decomposition of plants and animals" is informative enough. That definition would include compost, detritus, soil, CO2 and H2O etc, none of which are fossil fuels. True, fossil fuels are remains of decomposition of plants and animals, but they're only one specific breakdown route for organic matter. Perhaps this could be acknowledged? "Fossil fuels are the remains of animal and plant material preserved by anaerobic decomposition, and subsequent compression and drying"? A geologist might be able to write something clever? 210.55.20.220 (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Eric

Canada

Canada has a ton of nuclear plants. The map is wrong unfortunately, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.166.15.243 (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean Image:Nuclear power stations.png? It puts Canada in the category of "Considering new plants", which it distinguishes from "Considering first plant", so that seems correct. But it's out of date about Italy, which is also planning new plants.

—WWoods (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, IP guy apparently does not understand the map. See Nuclear power in Canada. TastyCakes (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The map legend is missing one of the colour keys - the bright red, indicating that plants have been decommissioned. It shows up in the enlarged image, but not the standard in-page image. 210.55.20.220 (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Eric

Human waste

Um, this is truly the last topic anyone wants to talk about (& forgive me if it's in here & I missed it), but there is some talk about using human waste as an alternative energy source in the future: http://www.ebioant.com/archives/3781. I once heard that human waste is a big problem worldwide because most people (the poor) have no modern facilities to get rid of their waste, which pollutes the soil & water worldwide, so finding a use for all of it is urgently needed. Stars4change (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

South Africa

South Africa has nuclear plants. The map is wrong, but I might have the map confused too: South Africa has a nuclear plant in full operation: from "Koeberg Power Station"

Koeberg Power Station is the only nuclear power station on the African continent. It is situated at Duynefontein, 30km northwest of Cape Town in South Africa on the Atlantic coast. Koeberg ensures a reliable supply of electricity to the Western Cape one of the fastest growing regions in South Africa. It has operated safely for more than 21 years and efficiently for a decade and has a further active life of 30 - 40 years.

The stations' two reactors supply 1 800MW or 6% of South Africa's electricity needs. Koeberg has produced more than 81 000 million kWh of electricity since 1984 using seven and a half tonnes of uranium.

--Gotfredsen (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Updated version of World energy consumption by type 2006.png

I made an updated version of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_energy_consumption_by_type_2006.png. Can be found here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_Fuel_Consumption.pdf But I couldn't find any data for renewable energy for the year 2008. The BP Statistical Report on Energy doesn't list it and the Energy Information Administration has another set of categories. I am not even sure, how the original author combined the BP and EIA information in the first place, to create the pie chart. I would like to replace the old picture with mine, but I am not sure yet if I should do it. Any comments are welcome. Go die big city (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please rename it as .svg and delete this file? A pie chart would be much better, though. 199.125.109.80 (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)