Talk:Sustainable energy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Transclusion

ISTM that the use of transclusion to add the entire contents of the renewable energy and nuclear power articles to this one is not a good way to go. I'd prefer we had just a summary and a link. That's what links are for! Andrewa 23:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, links should be used to expound on the subject over and beyond the text - but the text should stand on its own. I agree that full transclusion errors on the side of too much information, and I am proposing a modification of transclusion which would import only the Main section (with or without image(s)) which I think would be perfect for these kinds of Meta-articles. Benjamin Gatti

See Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#Transcluding sections and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Transclusion within the article namespace. Apart from the suggestions you have made in Talk:Renewable energy#Sustainable energy, is there discussion elsewhere? Andrewa 01:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The transclusion is definitely, definitely not a good thing. Please don't do this. Link to them if you have to, with a short synopsis. Transcluding like this, at the very least, makes the pedia appear unprofessional when people go to those articles and find.. the same thing. Also, it requires use of the = header, which is frowned upon. --Golbez 09:18, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be worse if one were to go to two places and find a different thing? It seems to me the core assumption of a pedia is the singularity of truth. I don't disagree that it's a bit lengthy, but it self-updating data, and that has value as well. Benjamin Gatti

What people should do is go to one place and find info about X, and go to another place and find info about Y. They won't find different info at the two places because the info should be in only one place. --Golbez 06:54, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

What you're missing is the concept of a complex document (in essense a meta--subject), SInce "Sustainable energy doesn't really exist in any exclusive since (meaning this, that there is no energy whhich is sustainable which is not also something else) There would be very little on that page. We could have the article reduced to a mere list of included energies, but that - in my opinion is not a good read. Better would be a bried summary of each energy. But the editor of Sustainable may not be versed innuclear physics, so it would be better to reference the work of others - not by copying the current state - which is transient, but by making full reference to the history and the basis as well as the arguments on all sides by inserting the opening summary directly into the Meta-Article. II hop in your reply you will address the Meta-article. you're simplistic X here and Y there example is nice in principle but lacking in practice. Benjamin Gatti

Simply put, when I go to sustainable energy, I should get information on sustainable energy. If you want to list info about sustainable energies, that's fine, but if the info is contained in another article, just link to that other article. That's how this thing is designed. Otherwise you're essentially shoehorning two articles into the same space, using = headers to get around the obvious problems, and the articles have overlap (two external link sections, two category sections, etc). I don't see how this needs to be debated any further. Simply put - A wiki article isn't a complex document. It's an encyclopaedic article. We link, not transclude. Otherwise, why have fifty articles on the states? Just transclude them into U.S. state. But then U.S. state will be worthless.

Here's another way of looking at it. You have article X about one subject and article Y about a similar subject. Both are 5 pages long. You transclude them into article Z which is otherwise only one paragraph long, creating an article ten pages long but has only one paragraph of unique and immediately pertinent information. Mostly a wasted article IMO. --Golbez 17:22, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you - transcluding (The Entire article) is inartful; however it has benefits, and could - if transclusion were improved, be ideal for Meta articles - that is articles which have sections with a summary and a link to a child article. I'm not objecting to a manual summary - since that is the technical limitation, but I am proposing the ideal solution - partial transclusion - because it reducs the effort required to keep the entire body of work current. Benjamin Gatti

Removed text

I've replaced the reason that nuclear is not renewable, which previously read:

Nuclear power which is excluded from the list of renewable energies because of its potential to be used as a weapon of mass destruction.

This is irrelevant to whether or not nuke (or anything else) is renewable. The reason nuke is not renewable is that it is dependent on the consumption of a finite resource. Andrewa 14:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

If you say. But I think you have to admit that the concerns over nuclear energy have to do with their destructive potential, and not directly with the fact that we will run out of fissionable material. There is a complicated connection however, and that is that when the supply of "cheap safe nuclear fuel" is diminished - which is expected in 50 Years (less perhaps if the chinese come on strong) then there will be an increased pressure to pursue "more costly and more weaponizable" fuel - such as reprocessed fuel rods (which is partly the reason why we "store" rather than bury used fuel. I propose that this nexus is commented on by the various editors and provided as an explaination. Benjamin Gatti

There's a lot there, some of which I disagree with. For a start, the concerns of those who oppose nuclear energy are as varied as the people who hold them, so no, I don't admit that at all.

But this talk page isn't for promoting our own opinions. It's for working out how to improve the sustainable energy page, as an encyclopedia article. It's not clear to me what, if anything, you are proposing in that regard. Andrewa 06:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that hiding behind "not our own opinions" is ever going to resolve an issue. The truth is very few people have "their own" opinions. Most opinions are shared by a subset of the population, and we as individuals subscribe to them or not. Thus the "our own ideas mantra is trite and at odds with a refined rational view.

The thing is, the goal here is to build an encyclopedia. Not every issue can be decided by an encyclopedia article. So it's not that I'm hiding anything, any more than I was admitting anything before. It's just this isn't the place for that sort of discussion, although most of us fall into it at times. Read NPOV if you haven't already done so. You're obviously very involved in politics, so this will be a big paradigm shift for you. Have a go. Take it slowly.

Are you suggesting that we not mention the distinction between "Renewable" and "Sustainable" energies (That being (as I understand it - that one includes nuclear)? - or that we not offer a smorgasbord of published opinions which represent that rationale for including and unincluding nuclear energy? Benjamin Gatti

Not suggesting we leave it out, no, in fact I was the one who added it in the first place, remember? As to the smorgasborg, yes, that's exactly what NPOV suggests we do in such cases. But not flooding the article with masses of biased or less relevant detail, either. Long articles need to be carefully structured and written to make the key points readily accessible. NPOV says something about that too. The other thing is, it sounds here as if you're wanting to add this information (which would be good), but what you've now done instead is to remove the information that was there! See below. Andrewa 00:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed nuclear-centric text

"is excluded from the list of renewable energies because in its current form (based on nuclear fission) it depends on the terrestrial supply of the nuclear fuels uranium and thorium which although large is finite.

The term is particularly preferred to renewable energy by proponents of nuclear energy, to highlight one of the claimed advantages of nuclear energy over fossil fuel as an energy source. Although some authorities such as Bernard Cohen have claimed that the supply of nuclear fuel is so large that nuclear energy should be regarded as renewable, this has not become common usage on either side of the nuclear debate. " Was removed.

I suggest it is safe to indicate that these terms mean what they say "By Convention" i can show state documents calling for Renewable energies which explicitly state that they do not include Nuclear energies, and I'm not sure that it is useful to argue the "wy" of it. If an editwar and another contended article on reasons for nuclear is needed here, then so be it. I propose that we not try to explain why. Benjamin Gatti

The result is certainly less biased, but that's because there's almost no content left. You've reduced it to a definition and a list of links, arguably a deletable sub-stub. From one extreme to the other!

I don't think by convention is accurate. Both renewable and sustainable have quite clear and agreed meanings, and the meanings of renewable energy and sustainable energy just follow from these meanings. That's not convention, is it?

IMO the meanings of these terms are fairly well agreed, what isn't agreed is whether nuclear power has these particular characteristics. But I wouldn't get too worried about it. I'll accept by convention for the moment even though it looks a bit silly to me. If it worries someone else they can change it.

What's more serious is the need to now expand the article a bit. Any ideas? Andrewa 00:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

My proposal

Here's a suggestion of how the first section should read (between the horizontal lines):

---

Sustainable energy sources are energy sources which are sustainable, that is, not expected to be depleted in a human timeframe.

Sustainable energy sources include:

• All renewable sources such as:
  • Solar power and its derivitaves:
    • Hydroelectric power.
    • Wind power.
    • Wave power.
    • Ocean current power.
    • Ocean thermal energy convertion.
    • Salinity gradient power.
  • Lunar derived power such as:
    • Tidal power.
  • Geothermal power.
• Nuclear power, which is excluded from the list of renewable energies because in its current form (based on nuclear fission) it depends on the terrestrial supply of the nuclear fuels uranium and thorium which although large is finite.

The term is particularly preferred to renewable energy by proponents of nuclear energy, to highlight one of the claimed advantages of nuclear energy over fossil fuel as an energy source. Although some authorities such as Bernard Cohen have claimed that the supply of nuclear fuel is so large that nuclear energy should be regarded as renewable, this has not become common usage on either side of the nuclear debate. On the other extreme, others such as former President Jimmy Carter have claimed that nuclear energy is not sustainable, let alone renewable.

---

Personally, I wouldn't expand the list of renewable sources quite so much, but if other editors feel it adds balance I'll listen to that. That's what collaboration is for!

We still need a source to cite for the Jimmy Carter story, see above. This should go in the external links section. Andrewa 01:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Politics

I think the politics of the term are of interest and should be mentioned, in fact I hope this will expand from being a paragraph to a section, in time. The shift from the term renewable energy to the term sustainable energy has many aspects, and the inclusion of nuclear is just one of them. Of at least equal interest is the generational shift in the environmental movement of which it is part. Postmodern thought includes a shift away from ideology and towards pragmatism. A focus on sustainables rather than the more idealistic concept of renewables is part of this shift. This obviously relates to whether nuclear power is regarded as sustainable, but it also goes far deeper.

And, it explains why those resisting this shift prefer to think of it as just a movement to include nuclear energy, and to deny this deeper significance. If the term sustainable energy is regarded as by definition a synonym for renewable + nuclear, then any discussion as to whether nuclear is sustainable (or renewable for that matter) becomes nonsense. (Notice I've removed the and from the list.) So to define nuclear power to be sustainable is not a good move.

The challenge, as I said before, is to describe these politics without promoting a particular point of view. Andrewa 01:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Carters position is not so much ANTI-NUKE, as it is exceedingly cautious about the ramifications and potential of nuclear energy. There's a recent quote of his on the Nuclear power article or Price Anderson. I'll try to find it. The proposal left me unconvinced. I see no cite providing the reason Nuclear is excluded, and i very deeply suspect it is for reasons other than what you describe. Remeber greenpeace is the father of anti-nuclear sentiment. I believe the position was honed early when reactors were fairly unknown, and Nuclear war ie the cold war, and the interest in bilateral disarmament was very high. Nukes were at that time - the big scare, and quite frankly were paraded around in the streets of moscow like big phalic symbols of the dominant class. reducing all the pathos of that era into the rather autisticly sterile explaination that the lack or thorium was the reason is a stretch I am not likely to take without numerous authoritative citations. Benjamin Gatti

I see. So, when you referred to Carter above ("I would suggest that (per President Carter) Breeder reactors are too dangerous to be considered Sustainable"), was that hearsay? (Andrewa 07:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

Carter's position was that reprocessing is dangerous. I doubt he would have used the label "Sustainable" either way because i doubt that the label existed. Was it hearsay? well it was by the time you got it. I got it from his speaches then and now. Benjamin Gatti

I see. So, when you referred to Carter, you meant that he seemed generally in agreement with what you said, not that he had actually said it? Andrewa 20:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I see your point about the historical use of the term renewable energy, but if I were to say instead Nuclear power is not regarded as renewable for historical reasons, I think you could validly reject that as promoting a pro-nuclear POV! Despite this history, I think today renewable energy means something like energy that comes from existing flows of energy, from on-going natural processes... And hey, that's pretty much what the renewable energy article says too...! (;-> Andrewa 07:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The question as I see it is this: Are "Sustainable" and "Renewable" energies a compound word or a "label" - the differnce is that as a compound word, the definition could be expected to be found by examining the composite words - however as a "Label" - its definition is imbibed with meaning by those who coined the term and popularize its use. I suggest that we call it a "label" popularized by X and used by X, Y, and Z to refer to specific energy sources M,N & Y and meant to exclude I and J. This in my opinion comes much closer to the truth, than to try and re-argue the merits of the label in the first place as a perfectly accurate use of the composite terms. Benjamin Gatti

What the term means as a label (to various people) and what it means grammatically are both relevant here. In your circles, I would guess that a particular label use is predominant. Frankly, this is only possible because certain debates aren't allowed there... notably, the question of whether nuclear power is truly sustainable in the grammatical sense. Outside of these circles, it's a lively debate.

My version of the article attempts to deal with both uses, as it should. Yours restricts the definition to the narrow (and I would suggest rather dated) sense your political orientation chooses. Andrewa 20:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

My circles - I'm a software developer in Charlotte. we work with professional photographers. I have a provisional patent on a wave energy device, and working on a solar device. When i think of a circle, i think of paying 100 a plate to have hotel food with a junior member of agricultural committee - i don't think this is about "my" circles. Really this has little to do with me. If you read talk/renewable energy you will see it was decided that renewable energy doesn't include nuclear because it was INTENDED to exclude it. that is the words are not a compound meaning where the wole is the sum of the parts, but is rather a "coined phrase" intended to mean waht its coiners intend it to mean, and nothing else. - It was further suggested that "Sustainable energy" is another label INTENDED to include nuclear. I'd like to see evidence of that - but at the moment we are proceeding on that assumption (or at least i am.) Benjamin Gatti

Nuclear sustainable?

I found this:

"The Sustainability Principle: "No generation should deprive future generation of the opportunity for a quality of life comparable to its own." [1]

"When viewed from a large set of criteria, nuclear power shows a unique potential as a large scale sustainable energy source." OECD 2001." [2] Not sure who OECD is.

Some Google results: "Sustainable energy" 993,000 "Sustainable energy" nuclear 163,000 "Sustainable energy" wind 258,000 "Renewable energy" wind 2,520,000 "Renewable energy" nuclear 1,200,000

"Nuclear energy is the energy released when atoms are either split or joined together. A mineral called uranium is needed for this process. Heat energy and steam produced can drive an electricity generator in a power station, or provide direct mechanical power in a ship or submarine. At each stage of the process various types of radioactive waste are produced. This waste is poisonous and can cause harm to people and the environment coming into contact with it." [3]

According to this EU page "sustainable energies" include "non-nuclear energies" and I see no mention of nuclear energy (except as a see also.) [4] This is beginning to look as though US sources might refer to nuclear as sustainable to a much larger extent than European centric publications. Benjamin Gatti

I don't know about America, but in Europe we usually don't talk of nuclear energy as a renewable energy source. It could be different in France, though, they seem have a rather positive image of nuclear energy. The perception of nuclear energy could be different of course in America and Europe. I want to add that you didn't mean the quoatation marks in your google hit comparison. I think the idea of comparing all the articles about sustainable energy with the number of articles about sustainable energy that mention nuclear energy is good, but it's not really possible in the way you did. I tried something else (I put the quotation marks as I write them):

"renewable energy" 12,500,000

"renewable energy" +wind 2,590,000

"renewable energy" +nuclear 1,580,000

"renewable energy" +wind +nuclear 864,000

Now this doesn't necessarily mean all of the hits for the last two searches all say nuclear energy is renewable. Many could just mention it saying it is not, e.g.

"nuclear energy" +renewable -"non-renewable" 337,000

Maybe the next numbers are more impressive:

"renewable energy" -nuclear +wind 1,340,000

"renewable energy" +nuclear -wind -"non-renewable" 637,000 (excludes non-renewable. many pages say "non-renewable" instead of "renewable")

Many of the pages found with the last search term are actually stating something like "nuclear energy and renewable energy..." The high number might just be an artifact of the many hits for nuclear energy (33,500,000). Note that most pages about nuclear energy don't mention the word renewable: nuclear energy -renewable 28,400,000 (though they might just talk about some aspects other than renewability, about a sixth of the article mention it). A fifth of wind energy articles mention "renewable".

"renewable energy" +solar 3,110,000

"renewable energy" +biomass 986,000

BTW, OECD is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Ben ^T/_C 05:04, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Right - I found most of the leading links in my searches listed nuclear as non-renewable, and at the same time used sustainable and renewable so interchangeably as to be indistinct. It appears that Pro-nuclear sources tend to argue for sustainability of nuclea, but I see little evidence that governments or third parties have adopted the use of either term to include nuclear. Nuclear i think most commonly is the third wheel - as in 1. Fossil fuels, 2. Renewable energy, 3. Nuclear. Benjamin Gatti

Your first two links above both use the term sustainable to mean something significantly different to renewable, do they not?

Please, if you remove a section heading, remove the section-stub notice too. It makes the article look bad.

I have now tidied up the mess you made (again) of the article. I'm not quite to the point of putting a POV notice on it, but that may come. Your arguments are improving but still miss the whole point. Andrewa 01:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Yet another overhaul

I've overhauled and expanded the article in what I hope is a neutral fashion. Mostly this was so that I could move renewable/sustainable energy material out of ITER, where it really didn't belong, but the edit kind of took on a life of its own. The article as I've left it makes a fair attempt at giving an overview of the options available, and the problems of each, while not duplicating content from renewable energy or making a pitch for or against any given solution. Enjoy. --Christopher Thomas 09:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sustainable Definition

"Sustainable energy sources are energy sources which are not expected to be depleted in a timeframe relevant to the human race, and which therefore contribute to the sustainability of all species. This concept is termed sustainability."

This article gets off on the wrong foot in the first sentence. There is no way to discuss whether nuclear is or is not sustainable energy if we start off with a bad definition.

SUSTAINABLE is not only concerned with whether the source will run out any time soon. I don't know of anyone concerned about running out of nuclear fuel. (We should be so lucky.) That is not the issue.

The Sustainability article has it right:
"Sustainability is a systemic concept, relating to the continuity of economic, social, institutional and environmental aspects of human society. It is intended to be a means of configuring civilization and human activity so that society, its members and its economies are able to meet their needs and express their greatest potential in the present, while preserving biodiversity and natural ecosystems, and planning and acting for the ability to maintain these ideals in a very long term. Sustainability affects every level of organization, from the local neighbourhood to the entire planet."

THAT is the issue - what are the long-term side-effects of using nuclear power? Is it appropriate? Is it wise? That is what the debate should be about.

I am not going to change the main article, because I sense that would be picking a fight. Someone braver will have to fix this mess.

It seems to me that only people who have already decided that any side-effects of using nuclear power are acceptable would be comfortable classifying it as Sustainable.

(Logically, Sustainable energy might NOT be a pure superset of Renewable energy. If a potential source were continuously replenished and in no danger of running out, it would be Renewable. But if using it had overwhelmingly bad side-effects on humans and life on earth, it would not be Sustainable.)

69.87.202.5 22:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The two words are used interchangeably, and the definitions used for each overlap. We should either merge this article with Renewable or else find the "original" definition for each, and use those as the premise for the articles. Did someone coin "sustainable" as an alternative to "renewable", for instance? — Omegatron 23:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I fear that the only pure NPOV way to deal with the differing views is to start the article by acknowledging that the meaning/definition of the term is disputed. Historically, nuclear has often been excluded by definition, due to concerns about side effects. Some claim nuclear should be included because there is not an issue with running out of fuel. And some think that Sustainable energy is concerned with all of the ways an energy source might or might not have long-term adverse impacts, so the sustainability of nuclear is subject to debate.

This claim is certainly not NPOV, and does not belong at the top of the article: "Fission power and fusion power power meet the definition of sustainability..."

Since the main controversy is over nuclear, if the opening was written in a very careful and vague way, this disagreement could be postponed until the nuclear section. 69.87.201.34 11:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Who first used the word "renewable"? Who first used the word "sustainable"? What were the definitions meant at that time? Did nuclear even exist at that time?

Yes, the sustainability or renewability of all power sources is subject to debate.

I believe this article was actually created to disperse The Great Nuclear Debate in Talk:Renewable energy, though this could also be seen as a POV fork. — Omegatron 14:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In this case, the question is academic, because nuclear power does not have any chance of crippling humanity over the long term. While ideally waste would be disposed of safely, even if you were to grind it up and spread it all over the planet, it still wouldn't raise cancer rates more than they're already being raised by the trace amounts of thorium being dusted around by coal-burning plants. We've already demonstrated, by exposing ourselves to this pollution, that human civilization can thrive even under those conditions. So, even a worst-case waste-release accident would have at most local effects. --Christopher Thomas 16:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The way they talk about it, you'd think that radioactivity was something unnatural that we created with stolen alien technology or black magic. We dig it out of the ground. It's natural. It's from the Earth. When we're done with it, we put it back in the ground.

Since we're converting nuclear energy into heat energy, aren't we actually lowering the overall level of radioactivity on the Earth? — Omegatron 03:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Not significantly, since most of the background radiation of non-cosmic origin that people are exposed to comes from trace quantities of radioactives in the general environment. The stuff we burn comes from highly-concentrated ores, which most people don't live on top of. But, we're getting off-topic from article-related questions (whether caveats about nuclear energy's status as "sustainable" are needed, and where they should go if so). --Christopher Thomas 04:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sustainability not Absolute

Sustainability is not an absolute Yes/No matter. It asks the question, What are the potential adverse long-term impacts? It is a matter of degree, and depends on scale and the relationship we create with a technology or activity. If humans were fewer and used fossil fuels more judiciously, they could be an indefinitely sustainable energy source. But in light of our foolish short-sighted greed, we are lucky to be running out of easily accessible crude oil, since the side effects are so dire at the scale of our use. And we are threatened by the immense quantity of coal and other petrochemical sources available, if we are willing to wreak destruction on our environment at that scale.

Any apparently benign source could be abused. A geothermal source could be over-used and exhasted, or otherwise used foolishly and destructively. Usually the scale of use generate qualitative changes in side-effects; it is often difficult or impossible to fully anticipate the problems generated when something new is used on an immense scale.

Anyway, instead of arguing over whether something is or is not sustainable, we should be discussing the ways and degrees each thing might or might not be sustainable. In this regard, the main article is actually quite good right now in content; it is only the introductory material that is problematic. 69.87.202.224 12:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Distributed sources

The main article has a peculiar limited focus on large centralized power generation, implicitly of electricity. There is almost no mention of direct uses of distributed sustainable energy, such as solar hot water or passive solar architecture or home-scale earth-connected heat pumps. No mention of the social/political issues related to centralized control (nuclear power) vs distributed generation (small-scale wind/solar/cogeneration/grid-connected hybrid autos at each residence/business). 69.87.202.224 13:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This is covered under the solar power and nuclear power articles. The "sustainable energy" article is an overview of the options available, not an in-depth discussion of any given option. Similarly, the question of whether or not distributed generation is a good idea doesn't directly relate to sustainability, so I don't see why it would need more than a passing mention here. --Christopher Thomas 16:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

SUSTAINABILITY is a broad concept, concerned with all potential long-term adverse problems. It is very much concerned with system issues, so a list of centralized power generation technologies is somewhat misleading. Due to social/political implications etc, any distributed power source could potentially be more sustainable than centralized power. I don't know that it deserves more than a passing mention, but I don't see it mentioned at all in the article currently. As a category, such structural issues deserve at least as much space as any of the specific technologies mentioned - certainly as much space as hypothetical sources such as solar chimnies! Single-family solar ovens are probably more practical/relevant... (Does "biofuel" include the traditional use of firewood?)

I don't see why this article should be conceptually limited to "an overview of the options available". It would make more sense for it to be an in-depth discussion of the SUSTAINABILITY or lack thereof, of such options. 69.87.201.177 01:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What more is there to discuss regarding the "sustainability or lack thereof" of the options? The sustainability of _renewable_ options isn't in question. It's also discussed more extensively in the renewable energy article, which is linked from both the head of this article and the head of the subsection giving an overview of these options. The only items left are fission and fusion, and the long-term sustainability of these is already discussed at length in this article.

Regarding distributed power generation - which is completely unrelated to questions of sustainability - I was going to add a mention of it at your request, but after thinking about it, I really don't see why it would be here instead of at renewable energy. All of the options that lend themselves to small-scale operation are renewable (fusion plants are big, and I shudder to think of the waste management issues with back-yard fission plants). Why not go over to Talk:Renewable energy and suggest it there? --Christopher Thomas 03:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 193.195.73.26

After looking for something worth keeping from this edit, I ended up rolling back all of it. Problems with each of its changes are:

• The fact that solar cells are energy-expensive is already mentioned. Anon's claim about _how_ expensive applies only to thick-film cells used without concentrators, and probably only to one specific study of this. Thin-film cells are available off the shelf right now. Cells with concentrators have been available for decades. The details of all of these tradeoffs are better discussed at solar cell, not in this article.

• Biofuels emit greenhouse gases, but these gases are absorbed by the plants that are used to produce the biofuel (this is the carbon cycle). Greenhouse gas emissions from _fossil_ fuels are relevant because they're not taken back out of the atmosphere. Biofuel avoids this problem.

• Tidal barrage and tidal stream aren't articles. Tidal power is, and presumably makes the distinction between these methods of production in that article.

--Christopher Thomas 16:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet more nuclear conroversy brought in

Despite a lengthy discussions, it seems a necessity to transfer here the material on nuclear sustainability form the Renewable energy article. Most of the pro-nuclear arguments are on sustainability rather that (more technical) definition of renewable energy. Political sustainability has to be taken into the play, as I did, provisionally. --- The ultimate argument for transferring the materiial is that Renewable energy article is too long. The nuclear material is transfered as-is and should be worked on.MGTom 14:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The parts about nuclear being "renewable" belong in the article about "renewables"; not here. — Omegatron 16:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Political controversy

I tried to clarify the controversy regarding nuclear power and remove a few weasel words ( many, very few, severe etc ... ). If I'm not completely mistaken the main argument against considering nuclear power sustainable is the nuclear waste issue. Risks of accidents and weapon proliferation are common arguments against nuclear power, but I don't really think they have anything to do with its sustainability. I guess the main relevance of such arguments in this context is that they serve to make nuclear power controversial, which is part of the reason classifying it as something which is normally considered positive (i.e sustainability ) spurs controversy. However, I think it is a bit of a stretch to invent a concept of "political sustainability", is that even a term which is commonly used? If not then it is original research and shoudl be dropped.

Also that some countries have banned expansion of nuclear power seems to be only moderately relevant in regards to weather it is sustainable or not. If a country were to ban Wind power it doesn't make wind power non-sustainable, it simply means it is not an option in that particular country. Same with nuclear power.

I'd suggest we rewrite this section to focus on nuclear waste disposal and handling, as that appears to be the only argument against classifying nuclear power as sustainable that holds any weight. The other arguments, while interesting in the context of weather nuclear power is a good idea or not, don't actually deal with its sustainability. I also have to wonder about the introduction. What does "social" reasons refer to there? I'd say we drop it and leave "for political reasons" or perhaps replace it with "ideological". Essentially the entire section on political controversy about the classification could use a rewrite. As it stands it is more about the controversy of nuclear power rather than controversy surrounding its classification. 85.230.193.135 01:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Breeder reactor are not sustainable

I would suggest that (per President Carter) Breeder reactors are too dangerous to be considered Sustainable, leaving the availability of (safer) nuclear fuel to be somewhat limited. Benjamin Gatti

Understood, I think. But surely you're not also suggesting that this view is well enough accepted to be considered NPOV?

Put the reference to Carter into the article by all means, suitable attributed and source cited, he is after all the only nuclear engineer to yet become a head of state AFAIK. But I think that means you should put the one to Cowan back as well. (And we should either do that or remove the external link supporting it, anyway.) I'm guessing it won't be much of a smogasborg if the only views there are those you want publicised. Andrewa 00:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The only view that I really feel compelled to publicize is that nuclear power just last week won an extension of the Price anderson act for current nuclear designs. This act underwrites the risk on the argument that it is necessary to underwrite the risk because either 1. the risk is too big for the industry, or 2. the risk is unaffordable given the market price of electricity. This undisputed fact on the ground means that Nuclear Energy is Dangerous. There are no facts on the ground supporting the PEak Oil theory - yet until I renamed it, it was referred to as Peak Oil as if it were a foregone conclusion.

As for Cowan, The link points to a web page by John McCarthy Ph.D. - a Computer scientist (though with a high google ranking nuclear energy page). He is clearly writing to promote a viewpoint, the page is not peer reviewed - it appears to be the personal page on an individual, and I think not really the stuff of source material. On it he stated the summation of Cowans works, but the actual work is not fully linked. The link should be to a peer-reviewed article IMO. Benjamin Gatti

Thank you. But at the risk of seeming pedantic, it's not considered good form to remove or modify other people's signed comments like that, even if you think you've satisfied their request or dealt with the issue. In this case of course you have and it didn't matter to me anyway, but I think the principle is important. Andrewa 20:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree that it's not a very good link for this purpose, but my point is that the link now has no purpose anyway, as it was there to support a statement that you removed from the article.

Have you a good link for your Carter story regarding breeder reactors? If not, a just average one would be better than nothing IMO. Andrewa 07:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought this statement made a lot of sense:

Nuclear power, which is excluded from the list of renewable energies because in its current form (based on nuclear fission) it depends on the terrestrial supply of the nuclear fuels uranium and thorium which although large is finite.

I think the safety debate (or risk) is something additional.

BTW, there is a discussion about nuclear safety and the Price Anderson Act at Talk:Nuclear_power_phase-out as well. Please contribute. Ben ^T/_C 08:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ben ^T/_C 08:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

ISTM that my wording which you quote is accurate, interesting and informative, unlike what has replaced it, on all three counts. The main reason for removing it seems to be that one of our editors feels strongly that it doesn't support their POV. None of their various attempts to "improve" this article yet seem successful, probably for this reason. I've not yet reverted while I try to discuss the issues, but my attempts have just meet with more POV. Andrewa 09:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I Agree that proposing a reason with named elements sounds good. It has been my experience however (For example seeking funding for renewable energies, that funding sources such as the Carbon Trust, State of Connecticut, California etc all exclude nuclear power without explaination - leaving us to merely guess the motives. My suspicion is that the motives are political which in a nutshell means that polls have been taken to see which way the wind is blowing on this issue, and it isn't blowing very good - so nuclear is out. As to why those people questioned don't like nuclear - i'm sure it has more to do with Chernobyl than another other one thing - and nothing to do with thorium - which most voters have never heard of. At the end of the day - these labels are politically defined and have meaning within a political context - pretending that they have a scientific definition is disingenuous. That my experience, i can support it with links - i'm open to other perspectives, but that is why the explaination was removed. Benjamin Gatti

Again, I don't think you've addressed the issues raised. Named elements is a detail, the questions were accuracy (most important), interest and information. Have you read NPOV yet? It's really important.

As to links, again I ask, can you substantiate the Carter story you quoted above? I've tried a couple of Google searches including [5] and [6], but it's not obvious to me how to find the link I want. Perhaps there's no mention online of the particular speech(es) you have in mind? That seems unlikely considering the relevance of the claim you make. Even a Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth page would be fine, I just don't think Wikipedia should make the claim without some reference to cite. We need your information. Andrewa 20:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

In response to "Breeder reactor are not sustainable" section as a whole

Hello all. I would like to add some very important information here. Most of what has been talked about on this page are estimates and peoples' opinions ("I think that" "in my opinion") of how they see this topic. Out of respect for everybody who has posted on this discussion, I do not intend to argue with your claims or researched information, but I do have a suggestion to help clarify what sustainability means in relation to energy, and specifically, nuclear energy (including consideration of the breeder concept).

I have a suggestion on how to do this: How about we add some actual data into our discussion? For example: the known world reserves of [insert nuclear fuel here] are [# of tons], and then using a methodology of realistic parameters for nuclear reactor (as well as a parallel consideration for breeders) design criteria, fuel consumption, and power output, and then comparing total power output to the projected world energy usage data and see how long the fuel supply lasts under each model (assuming all power is 100% nuclear - this assumption is made to play devil's advocate to disprove the sustainability claim). What I can contribute: I would be willing to work with anybody to come up with some real numbers under this model and show the calculations as plain as day for all to see, check, verify, and dispute if they have reason to do so. The result of these calculations would give us a good approximation for how long nuclear energy could meet human demand and thereby yield a quantitative and qualititative answer to the question "is nuclear energy is sustainabile?" for most intents and purposes here on wikipedia. What do you think? ~AK 08:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)AK

Renewables

Added POV tag

This article gives a false and negative impression of renewable energy technologies, mainly by pointing out the perceived "primary challenges" of each one, without any corresponding discussion of responses to each of these criticisms, and without any discussion of primary opportunities associated with renewable energy technologies. So this is not a neutral presentation. Johnfos 08:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, these challenges are quite real, and are described in the relevant linked articles. To downplay or omit them gives a strongly-POV impression. I've altered the lead-in for the renewable sources section to make clear that these challenges aren't insurmountable. --Christopher Thomas 21:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are so many "primary challenges" with renewables, how is this possible:

Wind power: worldwide installed capacity and prediction 1997-2010, Source: WWEA

Or this: SEGS, Nevada Solar One

These are key commercial initiatives which are being taken today and that need to be focussed on here as part of a balanced presentation. These are the relevant projects that are paving the way to sustainable energy. So they must be discussed as part of a neutral presentation. Johnfos 22:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you exactly why it's possible: In North America, and presumably elsewhere, alternative energy is subsidized to the tune of 40 cents per kWh, compared to a going rate of about 7 cents per kWh for conventional power generation (these specific numbers are for Toronto, Ontario, where I live; my understanding is that California's projects are similarly subsidized). The intended purpose of the subsidies, and of these pilot projects, is (in addition to wooing "green" voters) to generate investment into the technologies involved so that they may hopefully become cost-competitive in the future. Furthermore, the pilot plants that have been built to date are in the best possible areas for wind or solar generation. Supplying a significant amount of power at competitive costs would be a vastly different undertaking, for reasons already described (and noted at renewable energy). I hope it eventually succeeds, and I think it has a chance to do so, but the exponential-growth "prediction" bars on your chart are very silly. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Christopher Thomas 03:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

So now the issue is one of economics and not of primary challenges? I'll say again that the primary challenges to renewables are over-stated in this article.

As for wind power, here are a few more facts: the installed wind generating capacity in Germany in 2006 was 20,621MW (18,000 turbines) (see Wind power in Germany) and Denmark gets 20% of its electricity from the wind (see Wind power in Denmark). Thirteen countries around the world now have over 1000 MW of wind generating capacity and more wind farms are being constructed in most of these countries. There are no major problems in making capacity predictions for a few years hence, based on existing construction and building approvals received. To the best of my knowledge no one has suggested that predictions made are for exponential growth. -- Johnfos 22:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Your statement about economics vs. technical challenges is a false dichotomy. The "primary challenges" listed are those that must be overcome to make their respective energy sources economically competitive. They are demonstrably not competitive at present in North America.

The adoption of large wind power projects in Germany and Denmark are indeed noteworthy, and should be mentioned in the article. However, the references of Wind power in Germany mention exactly the problems that are mentioned in this article, so I find your objection to them puzzling. --Christopher Thomas 00:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the Wind power in Germany article and so am well aware of what is said there. I think that article achieves a nice balance, which is something that is missing here. -- Johnfos 01:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

More debate about renewables

I'd like to suggest that the "Renewable energy sources" section be replaced with text from the Renewable energy commercialization article, which discusses three generations of renewable energy technologies. Johnfos 01:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Renewable energy provides an overview of renewable energy options, which is exactly what that section is intended to summarize. If you feel pilot projects for commercialization are underrepresented, add a paragraph in the renewable energy section mentioning them, linking the article. --Christopher Thomas 03:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We're starting to go around in circles now... There is no point in my adding to the existing text in the "Renewable energy sources" section because the text which is already there is fundamentally flawed. The text there presents a one-sided view of renewables because it is focussing on so-called "primary challenges". The term "primary challenge" is used no fewer than ten times.

I can find no reference in the linked articles in the Renewable energy sources section to the "primary challenges" of renewables. (I can find several references to "pros and cons", and "advantages and disadvantages", but that is something altogether different to what is presented here.) And there are only two references cited in the Renewable energy sources section. So the continuing problem is one of a largely unsupported and one-sided view being presented. And that is why the POV tag must stay. -- Johnfos 07:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Your proposed solution involves putting speculative projections into the article, and otherwise giving the false impression that the technical challenges with making renewable energy sources economically competitive have been resolved. If you have a proposal that doesn't violate WP:NPOV, I'm certainly willing to listen. Better yet, show me what your ideal version of that section would look like here: Talk:Sustainable energy/sandbox01. --Christopher Thomas 00:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The proposal is that the text from the Renewable energy commercialization article be brought in and used as a starting point for discussion of renewables here. What I think could be valuable at this stage is for you to carefully go through the Renewable energy commercialization article and make any changes that you feel are needed. In particular, I would be grateful for an indication of any statements there that you feel have not been substantiated adequately, in which case you may wish to add {{Fact}} tags where necessary. -- Johnfos 01:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

The presentation as it currently stands absolutely violates WP:NPOV. First, whether pro or con, such things must be reliably sourced. A "pro and con" style presentation would be acceptable, but the current style is "con only". That is not. (On a side note, any URL ending in "blogspot.com" is not a reliable source. What would be needed most here would be, for example, citations from peer-reviewed science journals from scientists who have studied the matter.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I dispute this characterization of the existing description being "con only". However, if you have a proposal for changing this perceived bias that rests on adding factual information, I'll gladly listen to it; as explained above, I'm optimistic about renewable energy approaches eventually becoming economically viable (they're certainly getting a lot of investment, which is what's needed to make this occur). However, any claim that they are _presently_ economically competitive is going to need pretty hefty proof to back it up, as it contradicts all material I've seen or read to date.--Christopher Thomas 00:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your objection to blogspot.com links, I fully agree (per WP:RS). These appear to have been added while I was on sabbatical last fall. --Christopher Thomas 00:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Seraphimblade. I agree with what you say.

I think that a "pros and cons" type of presentation about renewables would be adequate here, but it has been done several times before in different articles, and to do it properly would take up quite a lot of space (see, for example, Energy development).

But, most importantly, I don't think it is the most appropriate presentation for this article, given that our topic is Sustainable energy. Sustainablity (an ability to continue something indefinitely) involves a future orientation and so we should be forward-thinking in our approach. (This is why I think it is quite appropriate to devote considerable space in this article to Nuclear fusion power, even though it is still experimental and (as I understand it) a commercial fusion power station could not be expected for decades yet.)

So I would like to suggest that we use the text from the Renewable energy commercialization article to replace the existing "Renewable energy sources" section. This would provide a temporal perspective on three generations of renewables and would be a good starting point to help us move on, and the text could be edited as required. -- Johnfos 01:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the main problems is the use of "primary challenge". Any characterization of something such as "primary" or "minor" or the like should be attributed-who said it's primary, and why do they say so? The best way to do it would be to find some reliable sources in favor of that particular power source, cite them, then find some which oppose or question it and cite them. (Even better would be a source which takes a balanced approach, outlining both potential benefits and drawbacks.) After that, it's attributable. "According to Someone's Science Journal, wind power can provide clean and pollution-free power. Someone Else's Newsletter notes that the technology does take up a large amount of land to provide usable amounts of power." A major part of NPOV is attribution-that way, it's clear it's not your idea, or mine, and who did say so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is "political sustainability"?

I am confused on why the section "political sustainability of nuclear power" exists. I believe sustainability should be (as this article states) "sources which are not expected to be depleted in a timeframe relevant to the human race". Sustainability should not have anything to do with being "favorable or unfavorable", or how "politically popular or unpopular" it is. This section simply states that it's political sustainability is debatable, and then has 5 paragraphs of why some critics may find nuclear power "unfavorable". These arguments have nothing to do with how long this energy source can last (i.e. Is nuclear power sustainable?).

I believe this section should be substituted for information about the different ways nuclear power can be used, since some ways are much more sustainable than others. Ajnosek 23:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The section is quite simply subtle anti-nuclear propaganda. Nuclear power is not renewable, but is sustainable, so the antis don't like the term at all, and have attempted to redirect this article to renewable energy on several occasions. Having failed in that, their tactic is now to try to redefine sustainable so that nuclear will fail their criteria.

I don't think as it stands it's worth fighting about. The section is explicitly about politics rather than physical considerations and unlikely to mislead anyone IMO. I could be wrong! But Wikipedia's job is simply to inform, not to persuade either way. Considering the odds atacked against it, this article is remarkably informative.

The suggestion that the sustainability of various nuclear fuel cycles could be compared here is a good one IMO. One tragedy of the debate is that so many well-meaning environmentalists are so opposed to nuclear power that they have missed the obvious truth that some nukes are better than others, and even when they do get it, they tend to go for the wrong ones... notably the PBMR and fusion power of course, both of which face enormous unsolved environmental hurdles when compared to generation III reactors, but which seem to get relatively good press in environmental circles. Andrewa 18:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

secondary source referenced

I'm unable to find the original publication cited as reference number 5: "^ "Hydropower-Internalised Costs and Externalised Benefits"; Frans H. Koch; International Energy Agency (IEA)-Implementing Agreement for Hydropower Technologies and Programmes; Ottawa, Canada, 2000". The reference includes a link to another web page, http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=260, which also references the publication. Can the author verify the citation? Mateopucu 15:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing POV tag

I'm removing the POV tag which I put on this article in March. Renewable energy commercialization has become a Good Article now, and (as suggested above) I've brought in some new material from it for the Renewable energy section here, ready for editing. -- Johnfos 01:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I would maintain that the article is still highly POV. You can probably image my reasons for this claim. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Why is the phrase about other species relevant? --Masonfree40 (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no free lunch

The title description states "Sustainable energy is the provision of energy that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs." A) who can see the future? B) Even if the future remains the same (e.g. energy demand) as today, nothing is sustainable indefinitely. Solar will die when the sun dies, and could be modified by global climate change. Geothermal will diminish when the earth cools and internal fission also dies out. There is no "end of life" model that is sustainable forever. In the case of Sustainable Energy, there is also a beginning - energy collection systems have a live-cycle engineering beginning of life which also consumes energy -mining and refining of resources, transport and maintenence to name a few. Any energy collection concept also has an end-of-life, a disposal phase which also consumes energy. Life-cycle engineering needs to be part of any model for sustainability. As cited in one definition, I'd restrict sustainability to within the average lifetime of human beings. Furthermore, I'd stick to the definition and not the solution, for the solution is not at all apparent. There is much controversy whether any of the proposed options truly meets the definition of "sustainable". To suggest an unproven solution here is not honest. --96.244.247.130 (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear Fusion is wrong

The article barely touches on Nuclear Fusion but what it says is mostly inaccurate. It says both Nuclear Fission and Fusion create nuclear waste. This is not true, the only by product of Nuclear Fusion in the best type of reaction is Helium. The only radioactive material is the Tritium which there is very little of in the reactor. So little that if it were all to escape (unlikely) it would simply dissipate in the atmosphere with no ill effects there is very little in the reactor like a few grams. The only other issue is that the materials of the reactor will become radioactive over time due to the bombardment of neutrons, sure this is a problem but I would not lump it into the same issue of nuclear waste as Nuclear Fission. This material is a different class of radioactivity which is due to neutron bombardment and not from the material being radioactive this means it will only be radioactive for like a 100 years instead of 1000 years and it is also low grade radioactivity. On top of that you would not have much of this material only a few tons every like ten years when you need to replace the material for maintence, so even though this is a con it isn't a very big one as we can store this material under hardwater until it is stable enough to dispose of. It is a small price to pay for a realistic energy source that can meet the worlds needs in a non green house gas producing manner. To deny this simply because it has the word Nuclear in its name is short sighted and shows you really don't care about the envrionment. You have to remember even though it is a nuclear process it is the complete opposite of Fission they aren't similar at all. The only downside to Fusion is that it would be very expensive and is hard as hell. But so was the concept of flight it doesn't mean we shouldn't invest in it and make it happen. Luckily people are smart and are investing in it because the people who makes decisions don't base them off inaccurate articles like this. www.iter.org for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukaribe (talk • contribs) 19:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear is not sustainable energy

Contrast to General View
Something is wrong here. Nuclear is not considered to be sustainable by the general public.(look up all different sources like EU Sustainable Energy Campaign, major environmental organisations or organisations /networks who are calling themeself "sustainable energy" e.g., INFORSE.).

Wait a minute: Nuclear is either fission or fusion. Which is it? Fission exists naturally on earth (ex: geothermal) and man-made, and fusion is evident by the Sun's energy. Just what is meant here?--96.244.247.130 (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sustainability contra Environmental catastrophe (Chernobyl)
If we look at what "sustainablility" is we cannot call an energy source sustainable when its use has a potential to make a environmental and health catastrophe for a part of the world. (reference Chernobyl catastrophe). This cannot be debated. The Chernobyl catastrophe is a fact.

Non-sustainable Use of Renewables
It should be also noted that not all renewable energy sources are concidered to be sustainable. There are also unsustainable use of renewable energy. Unefficient use of biomass, and big hydro power plants are among those which are often considered to be not "sustainable". Biased - Needs Rewrite
I think part of the article got biased by nuclear lobbyist and the article needs to rewritten.

TollymoreLad (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear Breeder is the Only Sustainable Energy

The reason is the fact that the forces that bond the atomic nucleus are about a million, or ten million, times as strong as the forces binding the electrons to the nucleus. The nuclear energy is therefore millions of times as much as any chemical energy you can get, per ton of fuel.
I am NOT a "nuclear lobbyist", merely a person with some knowledge of chemistry, physics, and how to access the Internet.
The popularly so-called renewables are not in fact sustainable energy at the current human industrial rate of consumption.

In historical fact, biomass never has been sustainable, even when the world population was under one billion. That's why so many primeval forests, including the trees on Aku-Aku, no longer exist. But in order to eliminate coal burning, which emits carcinogens at a rate that dwarfs the average rate per gigawatt-hour of nuclear fission power, the only alternative is the fantastically enormous energy density of atomic nuclei which were created long before any fossil carbon was laid down.

The Integral Fast Reactor project,
which was foolishly cancelled in 1994 after about 30 years of scientifically fruitful operation, showed that fissile nuclides could be renewed at the same time as the reactor's stock of U-235 was being consumed, and in a manner that was not amenable to terrorist theft. The plutonium was recycled into fuel rods by machines in an area of radioactivity billions of times more deadly.than plutonium. It could even consume waste plutonium, of which there is more and more as sanity replaces the Cold War.

Meltdown Immunity

It was designed and proven to be immune to the very breakdown that caused the Chernobyl disaster, and that aggravated (probably far less than the news services implied) the gigantic, immense disasters of a combined earthquake and tsunami at Fukushima.

The proof was a test conducted a week before Chernobyl. The mechanism was simple. It depended upon the delicate balance of neutron flux and neutron escape that keeps a fission chain reaction going, and the fact that the spaces between the target fuel rods enlarge when the metallic structures holding them expand in response to excessive heat. Add to that thermally conductive fuel rods, and a liquid metal cooling system, and the reactor shuts down and cools itself by convection. The reactor under test was deprived, in successive tests, of primary cooling pump power, then of secondary cooling system operation. It quietly shut down on both tests,
The entire energy consumption of the USA is under 38 times what a mere 50 million pounds -- 25 thousand tons --of uranium oxide per annum has been producing for more than a decade. Note that the energy comes from an isotope that is present at seven parts per thousand of these 25 thousand tons, and that the present usage of the uranium scarcely gets to consume a quarter of that. So if we could use all of the uranium by using a fast reactor, it would not be hard to supply ALL of our energy demands with a fraction even of that fairly trifling 25,000 tons. By contrast, (look up the EIA figures) it takes thousands of millions of tons of coal to provide half our electrical energy annually.
The statement that a catastrophe as grave as the Chernobyl incident excludes a technology from consideration, could be applied to the use of motor cars, which annually kill tens of thousands of people in the USA, and a large proportion of them are cut off early in life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TollymoreLad (talk • contribs) 04:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Judit Szoleczky--Judit Szoleczky (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Chernobyl was a long time ago and it cannot happen again, because the remaining examples of the defective design (RBMK reactor) have been modernized to prevent this mode of failure. It was also completely inconsequential (56 deaths and 4000 cancer cases over 50+ years, which corresponds to less than 1% increase in the cancer fatality rate among the worst affected people) compared to disasters associated with hydroelectricity, or to natural disasters. The Banqiao Dam failure killed 171,000. However, I note that you don't like big hydro as well. That's interesting since it accounts for the lion's share of renewable energy produced worldwide. No big hydro, no coal and no nuclear = the end of industrial civilization, but maybe that's what you want from the start? --Tweenk (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You people are horrible, Nuclear is clearly sustainable to say it isnt because of a chance of a Nuclear disaster is such a bad argument its impossible to explain how you are wrong if you really believe that. This is because you are saying a small chance could make it bad for the environment even though that is true the technology is still sustainable. Not to mention the fact that modern Nuclear facilities are so unlikely to have a Nuclear disaster the fact you bring it up shows you are closed minded and ignoring common facts to push your hippy agenda. To argue Nuclear is not sustainable because of Uranium supplies is a better argument but still silly because there is plenty of Uranium its like saying Geothermal isn't sustainable because you could use up all the heat in a geothermal location. Yes this is true but you'd have to use it a lot for a long time so it is negligble and we don't consider that making it not sustainable. If you really care about the environment use your head, if you dismiss Nuclear you are being short sighted and closed minded. Do you really think we can power the world on Wind, Solar, Biomass, etc? No that's ridiculous and if that is your goal you will fail and we will continue to use coal. The fact is coal is far worse than any amount of Nuclear waste. It's just the hippies don't like the idea of using atoms and getting nuclear waste even though it isn't a big deal. When they have no real argument except their own exaggerated assumptions, it's as bad as a religious person not agreeing with stemcell research. So if you truly care about the environment you will understand nuclear is good and maybe we can rewrite this article to show that it is the only true answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukaribe (talk • contribs) 21:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As a medical physicist, I do not consider Nuclear Power to be a safe technology, given the experiences of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, and other radiation incidents. But it is not sustainable simply because it relies on dwindling resources of Uranium, which is extractable in only a few countries. Nuclear power is only used by countries which need to continue their supply of nuclear materials for weapons, and I think the article is very biased. As alleged in the preceeding biased comment, I am not a hippie or horrible either, it is nuclear proponents who are the closed minded. -AndyH-80.6.174.187 (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a nuclear and medical physicist too. (Ha Ha - test me. I need more evidence than that to lend credibility.)--96.244.247.130 (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, hydroelectrical plants are ecologically harmful too, if you really put it this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.78.150.171 (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Help article by expanding it

Please help improve this article by expanding it. J. D. Redding 17:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Skepticism

Many problems with this article. To say the least, it is poorly organized and needs a lot of work. I'm very unclear about the distinction between First, Second, Third generation technologies in terms of possible factual errors and POV. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What about maintenance cost of "green" solar / wind etc.? Is there a point where the cost of maintaining vast amount of machinery out paces the advantage of using such a system. Example: In ten years we have to replace the bearings in 8000000 windmills. or Birds pooped on and dust collected on 100000 mi^2 of solar panels. As amount machinery increases so does the human cost of maintaining it. 12.106.237.2 (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What you refer to is the impact of both reliability and maintainability in the ability to sustain systems. No discussion of sustainabilty should ignore this. --74.107.74.39 (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"Sustainable" must consider the entire Life Cycle of a system. It takes energy or resources to design and develop a technology before it it deployed. For example, it usually requires diesel fuel to power tractors to plant and harvest corn, to build a plant to render it to ethanol, and there is loss of energy in conversion to enthanol. It there is further losses of energy or resources to maintain it while in operational phase (energy for people to drive to site to maintain the system, or deliver the energy to end users, or manufacture spare parts), and finally it consumes energy or resources to dispose of the technology at end-of-life. Economic factors of life-cycle engineering all needs to be factored into "sustainability". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.164.83 (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

All systems have a life-cycle cost. Research (concept), design and development, production, sustaining (operations and maintenance) and finally disposal or end-of-life. Each phase isn't free. This has to be part of the article, or else it's just selling "free energy" without the fine print. --74.107.74.39 (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Blacklight, nuclear fusion

could blacklight, nuclear fusion be added to the list. Synthethic bacteria should also be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.14.197 (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Sustainable ,Renewable and Green energy merge all three?

Except for Nuclear power which is polluting in producing Nuclear waste. Why not MERGE all Three catagorys of Sustainable ,Renewable and Green Energy? Also, no mention of the ongoing (since 2005 ref tesla Society) of the Global Energy Independence Day(Held on Jul.10th The Birthdate of great energy pioneer Nikola Tesla 1856-1943) to support,promte and encourage "CLEAN GREEN" RENEWABLE ENERGY!Thanks!IMPVictorianus (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I dispute the entire first paragraph definition of sustainable energy. First of all, nothing is sustainable forever, and the first paragraph appears to promote a fantasy that there is such a thing as infinite sustainability. Everything has a life-cycle (cradle to grave). I believe the point should be taken that there are viable long-term energy resources that can greatly extend the useful and practical life of energy recovery systems. I emphasize the words "useful and practical". I await articles that show sufficent proof of this.--71.245.164.83 (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Redirect and merge

Yaris redirected this article [7], but I have restored it. Obviously we don't want to lose all this sourced information that has been built up over the years. Johnfos (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

With a redirect, an article's history is still accessible. I copied all the information across that I felt was important and I would invite other editors to do likewise. If no one objects, I will reinstate the redirect in a few days. If anyone wants to see the old sustainable energy article after this date, they can still see it through the article history.

In case anyone is wondering what I am on about, this article was nominated for a merge and the discussion seemed to come to a consensus to merge with Green energy. Yaris678 (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes a merger of the two is good. They need to be merged, however, into "Sustainable Energy". "Green Energy" is a fuzzy and useless term with no accepted definition. See the discussion for the proposed merger. Rlsheehan (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Rlsheehan, I know you posted words to that effect before. If you'll note the last comment in that discussion:

“ Support merger of Sustainable energy and Green energy. Irrespective of our differences about what the original merger suggestion was. We can take both "sustainable" and "green" to mean "environmentally-friendly" or "does less harm to the environment than the alternatives". "Renewable" means something different. "Sustainable" could be taken by some people to mean "renewable" but we can link to Renewable energy from the merged article. I propose that Green energy be the name of the merged article because then it is clearer that we don't mean renewable energy. It has been suggested that "sustainable" is somehow a more respectable term and that "green" is just a marketing term. I would disagree. The word green is a more firmly established short-hand for environmentally friendliness. Hence the numerous green parties advocating green politics. "Sustainable" is a very broad term which could mean environmentally-friendly and could mean many other things. ” — Yaris678 (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC), Talk:Green energy#Merge proposal

That was posted over two weeks ago and no one disagreed with it so I thought there would be no objection. Yaris678 (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rlsheehan and Hamiltonstone that "sustainable" is a more encyclopedic and definable term and that "green" is just a fuzzy marketing term. I think it would be a very strange situation for Wikipedia not to have an article called Sustainable energy. When doing the merge please make sure that no sourced content is lost. There actually seems to be very little overlap between the two articles in terms of actual content, so it would really be a case of adding the Green energy material to the end of the this article. Then normal editing could sort out any rough edges. Johnfos (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish to add a third opinion, per the request [8]. I believe that both the terms "sustainable" and "green" would be generally understood. I must admit that the term "sustainable" does seem to be used by some in the context of "renewable". If there is significant belief that "renewable" and "green" are substantially different, that must be taken into account. On balance though, I must agree that "sustainable" is more encyclopedic than "green". Hope this helps. —Matheuler 23:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge done per consensus, text is ready for normal editing. Johnfos (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion Matheuler. I am happy to go with the consensus that has emerged. And thanks for doing the merge Johnfos - It's better than a couple of weeks ago when we seemed to have agreed to do a merge and yet no one did one! Yaris678 (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

RENEWABLE SUSTAINABLE ENERGY THE SAME?A Global Energy Indpendence Day Jul 10th

Renewable energy Sustainable energy the same? Think theres TWO articles Wikipedia on this.One Alternative Energy One Sustaianble maybe combine both? Theres a Sustainable enrgy "Day" Jul 10th Global Energy Indpendence Day for 'CLEAN GREEN ENERGY"! VICTORYISMOI (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Fission and fusion should be separate sections

These are entirely different forms of energy. Lumping them together is like lumping together coal and gas because they both involve getting energy from chemical reactions. Fission power has been around for decades. Fusion power doesn't exist yet. There should be a separate fission section and a fusion section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.67.221 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• If you consider geothermal energy, the energy via fission has been around for billions of years... Fusion power does exist - its called solar. However, I do agree that their lifetimes and ability to exploit are totally different. --96.244.247.130 (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

TollymoreLad (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC) The probable best-so-far fusion energy technology is the Tokamak The difficulty about it is, that even the core of the Sun, at 1000 times the temperature of its surface, and many times the density of lead, has a lower density of energy production than the density of energy consumption of a bumblebee or even a human body. Strictly speaking, the Earth's radioactivity, the source of all geothermal and tectonic energy, is radioactive decay, and it is significantly different from what we call nuclear fission.

File:Moody Sunburst.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Moody Sunburst.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sustainable energy vs. Renewable Energy

Should we merge the Renewable energy page with this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabefair (talk • contribs) 21:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No. They are related, but separate subjects. Burning cedar in Lebanon was renewable, but not sustainable, at the level it was done. Many forests and fisheries have disappeared because they were not harvested in a sustainable manner. Delphi234 (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

potential resource

Globalizing the Energy Revolution; How to Really Win the Clean-Energy Race by Michael Levi, Elizabeth C. Economy, Shannon O'Neil, and Adam Segal Foreign Affairs November/December 2010 99.19.44.155 (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Globalizing the Energy Revolution; How to Really Win the Clean-Energy Race. Missing one k-. Delphi234 (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Improve this article.

This is the banner of a related course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canada_Education_Program/Courses/Environment_and_Society_-_Fall_2012_(Grant_Aylesworth) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yxiao2424 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC) If you have any advice about this article, please write down on this talk page or edit by yourself! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yxiao2424 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Sustainable energy

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sustainable energy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "NREL":

• From Solar power in the United States: Bird, Lori; Heeter, Jenny; Kreycik, Claire (November 2011). "Solar Renewable Energy Certificate (SREC) Markets: Status and Trends" (PDF). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Retrieved 2011-12-23.
• From Amonix: "Bulk Power Generator Produces More Power Per Tower" (PDF). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Retrieved Nov 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• From Solar tracker: 900 W/m² direct out of 1000 W/m² total as per Reference Solar Spectral Irradiance: Air Mass 1.5 NREL, retrieved 1 May 2011
• From Renewable energy commercialization: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2006). Nontechnical Barriers to Solar Energy Use: Review of Recent Literature, Technical Report, NREL/TP-520-40116, September, 30 pages.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Copy note

Yxiao2424 - thus far, all of your edits constitute copy-pasting content, either from the public domain or other Wikipedia pages. Your last edit was reverted (should've been an AGF revert) as the content already exists and was properly segregated onto an appropriate page. There are guidelines on article size, and the content that should be included. Randomly copying related material to the primary category page from subpages isn't necessarily helpful, and such changes should be discussed and consensus established. A few general problems exist with the content you copied, including: discussion of Renewable energy, which is not the same as sustainable (1)(2), improper formatting, and inclusion of content best left on subpages. More specifically, I noted a few other issues:

• The greenchipstocks source is not reliable, and again, was copied directly from an external source, contrary to your edit summary. As you were warned previously, this likely a copyright violation.
• The terms power and energy appear to be used interchangeably - they are not the same and there are some lengthy discussions on Wikipedia regarding which is appropriate and when.
• The large section on Germany appears to give undue weight to a single nation, particularly when the EU is already mentioned in the same section.

The low energy house content appears interesting - will comment more when I have time.--E8 (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see. Thank you for your patient explaination.

• I know there is a EU section, but it didn't mention the Green energy in Germany. Plus, Germany is doing well in this field. I think it is typical.

• The development of sustainable energy in China is fast. Also, the investment of this field in China is giant. Why there is no much text about this. I thought China is in a good trend of sustainable energy, maybe it should be mentioned in this article.

• In the section of sustainable energy research, I think it lacks the part of Tidal power and Wave power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yxiao2424 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Some suggestions

• To improve the Energy Efficiency section, I'd like to add the wiki page of Energy Star, is an international standard for energy efficient consumer products originated in the United States of America.

• My friend noticed that the energy efficiency section is extremely out of date. It looks like it hasn't been updated in five years! It doesn't even go into smart-grid technology, which experts say will play a huge role in energy efficiency. Thus, I'd like to add smart-grid technology section into this article.yxiao2424 (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• It sounds as though you've identified some improvements. If you're confident your edits are "safe" (and not simply pasting from another page), enter them directly on the page. If you have questions or unsure about something, start writing in your sandbox; you can link it to this page and ask for input once completed.--E8 (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, folks, the cleanest and most sustainably renewable technology is nuclear breeder technology, which can use 993 parts per thousand of the uranium that contains only 0.7% of itself as the fissile U-235. Fissile isotopes are renewable, and the waste when you don't throw away the uranium and plutonium is small and short lived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.45.41 (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Energy types

Please forgive my ignorance if I'm wrong, but I noticed some issues with sections 5 & 7 of this article.

• I noticed that the nuclear section is separated from the (#5) sustainable energy section. Why?
• Also, I am curious as to why the nuclear section makes no mention of plutonium or thorium. In the case of thorium, is it because it is still in the developmental phase?
• In addition, the nuclear section goes to the point of stating some of the drawbacks and seems to dismiss it. This seems to possibly violate neutrality, or at least may indicate editorial bias. I am curious as to why this was done, especially given that section 5 is inconsistent in stating pros and cons - some items note them while others do not.
• Why, indeed, do you not leave pros and cons to the main articles for each energy type and just put a brief description here?
• The article doesn't touch on a sustainable technology that I believe was developed in Indonesia by a student: contact energy generation. What was shown on the news is that a sheet of material which is sensitive to being touched was developed. It can generate energy through something as sustainable as rain or other contact. I'm sorry, I saw this on the news a couple of years ago and I don't know what the technology is called. If this gets developed, I can see it as being huge in the field - with little in the way of drawbacks. Imagine: as you walk, use your computer, take a shower, or do virtually anything else, there could be these sheets set up to capture at least a portion of the kinetic energy.
• Solar thermal (is that the correct term?) is absent.
• Finally, above it is mentioned that wave/tide energy has been left out, which leads me to ask why dams and micro-hydro have also been omitted. I can't imagine that the complete omission of all hydro power is because of the impact on ecosystems or other drawbacks, because then you'd have to remove wind, solar, solar thermal, geothermal, biofuels and, well, virtually every other type of sustainable energy.

I hope my input is of assistance.ReveurGAM (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Lots of material on synthetic fuel removed recently by Johnfos and others, on some of the material removed, I agree with its removal, but on others no.

Whoever added this in good faith does not appear to be aware that just because you use the carbon in coal stack CO2 emissions twice doesn't mean you really help the environment much at all. Synthetic fuels only make sense from a climate point of view if you get the CO2 from seawater or (less efficiently) the air, in every other respect however that the editor was right on the money, I have resurrected what they wrote in this regard, all if it makes economical, sustainable and climatic sense. This is what they wrote.-

The carbonic acid in seawater is in chemical equilibrium with atmospheric carbon dioxide. The United States Navy has done extensive work studying and scaling up the extraction of carbon from seawater. Work at the Palo Alto Research Center has improved substantially on the Navy processes, resulting in carbon extraction from seawater for about $50 per ton. Carbon capture from ambient air is very much more costly, at between $600 and $1000 per ton. At present that is considered an impractical cost for fuel synthesis or carbon sequestration.

Commercial fuel synthesis companies suggest they can produce fuel for less than petroleum fuels when oil costs more than $55 per barrel. The US Navy estimates that shipboard production of jet fuel from nuclear power would cost about $6 per gallon. While that was about twice the petroleum fuel cost in 2010, it is expected to be much less than the market price in less than five years if recent trends continue. Moreover, since the delivery of fuel to a carrier battle group costs about $8 per gallon, shipboard production is already much less expensive. The Navy estimate that 100 megawatts can produce 41,000 gallons of fuel per day.

Boundarylayer (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Nuclear blank out

Someone has removed the nuclear section, so I'm going to try to resurrect it.ReveurGAM (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This article seems to be the target of vandalism. I noticed a few days ago that the Energy Star section was also removed anonymously. Since the removal of the nuclear section was done anonymously as well, by a different IP, I have reverted it and added a brief note about Thorium. ReveurGAM (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Good catch man, predictably, wikipedia has a lot of anti-science types editing and removing material, especially anything possibly construed as pro-nuclear. I recently added a lot of detail to the nuclear power section, to give its proper amount of weight(as worldwide it is the largest sustainable energy source currently fielded). However I did not see the thorium material you reference(someone probably removed it again), if it was good stuff, could you add it again? I mean, what sort of sustainable energy page on an encyclopedia, that regards itself as respectable, doesn't include a proper treatise on Fusion? It is after all going to be the most sustainable of energy sources once it is achieved and commercialized. It'll out shine the sun in life span! so it is the epitome of sustainable, how much more sustainable do you need?

Boundarylayer (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears that Johnfos killed a lot of what was in the nuclear section in the recent past with the explanation of "unsourced", including the notes I'd added about thorium, but the lack of references is my own fault.

I must admit I didn't provide sources because I was confused: my sources are other WP pages about thorium, and I'm pretty much a novice at the sourcing game. It's pretty easy to find the relevant info about thorium to put in here, but I also didn't (don't) know if referencing another WP article as a reference is allowed, or if the specific references that are attached to info that is quoted or paraphrased must be used. Sadly, I now find myself overwhelmed with other projects and lack the time to deal with this myself. Do you have the time? My apologies! ReveurGAM (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reference for Wikipedia. but if another article says what you'd like to see here, then it's fialry easy to check the reference from that article and cite it here to support the same statement. Sometimes you get a citation to a document that isn't on-line, and in taht case you must be careful that it is being quoted in context - but often you can check the source, and if it looks good, cut'n'paste the citation. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed rather a lot of nuclear material put in today by BoundaryLayer[9], which violated WP:WEIGHT. I've also commented that the removed text was rather healthily dosed with POV, for instance in its removal of the statement that nuclear power as sustainable is controversial, prefacing BLP's with descriptions (such as "environmentalist"), as well as changing "some" into "many" (without references to that extent), the focus on the sulfur-iodine cycle (which while correct, isn't really in use) etc etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Kim as other editors here are aware, the nuclear power section has been under consistent vandalism by numerous anti-nuclear elements. (1) Changing 'some' into 'many' is entirely consistent with the list of people who regard nuclear power as sustainable. They are not some fringe group but include NASA climate scientist James Hansen, the only fringe group in respect to nuclear power and the only 'controversy' you speak of comes from biased anti-scientific organizations - Greenpeace.

(2) Nuclear power is subject to more half-truths and propaganda(again largely due to the likes of Greenpeace and their disinformation campaigns) than any other source of power. For this reason it requires a substantial amount of scientific weight in the article to put their anti-science propaganda to rest, and to address the reality of if fission and fusion are sustainable. Another reason for the nuclear power section is that - it is the most sustainable form of power humanity presently knows of, long after the sun dies, fusion and even some fission technologies will still have more than ample amounts of fuel to keep on going - i.e long after the wind stops blowing and your solar panels stop working for example, so are you really arguing the most sustainable form of power shouldn't get more than a few measles lines? If this encyclopedia wasn't infected with so much anti-nuclear bias and the sustainability technologies were ranked in descending order of sustainability, Nuclear power would be on the top. A fact that is inescapable, and you know it. Another reason for having a fleshed out nuclear power section is that, as there is plenty of uranium and thorium abound, fission is sustainable for thousands of years, not many people are aware of this, and believe the opposite, so it is necessary to detail just exactly how much is available, which is dependent on which reactor technology is used.

(3) You remove the sulfur-iodine cycle for reasons that are inconsistent, as nanotechnology solar panels feature in the article, - and similarly they're not really in use either Kim. So you have just demonstrated a monumental bias that has resulted in yet more censorship vandalism on this article.

Please desist from this biased censorship conduct.

Thank youBoundarylayer (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(1) You are confusing "being in favour of nuclear power in the energy-mix needed to confront environmental issues" and "stating that nuclear power is sustainable". Hansen (who btw. is not entirely mainstream) is in favour of nuclear.... so am i ... but that doesn't mean that nuclear is sustainable (and while you claim Hansen has said this - there is no ref for it). You will need to demonstrate the "many" by using references to WP:RS's. i note for instance that Branson doesn't say nuclear is sustainable - he is just for fast breeders. And you can't use Moore's claim about what others think, as a reliable source. (you synthesize quite a lot here).

(2) I don't care what the propaganda against nuclear power is, when considering this article. This is an article about sustainable energy - not about nuclear power. You ramble on quite a bit here - but you fail to realize this simple fact - this article is about sustainable energy!

(3) Solar energy is sustainable, that is in no way controversial... Nuclear is (by some) considered sustainable - but that is controversial. There might be other things in the article that should be removed - but your edits are what i react to.

The basics here is WP:WEIGHT - and please stick to a WP:NPOV description, instead of your own POV on nuclear as sustainable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Kim, please provide one scientific source that supports your POV that it is controversial to regard nuclear power as sustainable. I think you'll find that btw it is you who is not mainstream.

MIT have stated that there is plenty of fuel for 1000 reactors to be built over the next half century. -Which I reference in the nuclear power section, a section which you have consistently censored.

Patrick Moore more than once regards nuclear power as sustainable in the video that I provided in the section, so yes I can use that video.

Richard Branson - The construction of modern nuclear reactors was a step that was already agreed upon in the effort to build a new system powered by sustainable energy. http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/220496

James Hansen says it is very unfortunate that “a number of nations have indicated that they’re going to phase out nuclear power… The truth is, what we should do is use the more advanced nuclear power. Even the old nuclear power is much safer than the alternatives.”

http://theenergycollective.com/jcwinnie/60103/social-and-decision-sciences-and-engineering-and-public-policy

More than once he has described nuclear power as sustainable without specifically saying the word. You know this, but you're just filibustering for the sake of it at this stage.

James Hansen is also a recipient of the 2010 Sophie Prize for Environmental and Sustainable Development. So you should ask yourself, why they would give him a sustainable development prize if he was not for sustainable energy sources.

Read about the prize here - https://researchfunding.duke.edu/detail.asp?OppID=5241

You ramble on quite a bit here - but you fail to realize this simple fact - this article is about sustainable energy! Yes Kim, That means that the article should include long term, after the sun dies, sustainable energy. Kim, which power source would we still have running if the sun were to stop heating the earth tomorrow? Say for example, from a volcanic winter (like the 1800s Krakatoa etc.), or indeed when the sun dies naturally in a few billion years from now? If you answer nuclear power, as any logical thinking person would, you just proved my point. Nuclear Fusion is thy most sustainable source of power.

As for Solar energy, I think I'll let Mr. Gates respond to this one. - Gates argues that nuclear power is still safer than all other energy options, rich countries aren’t spending enough on R&D, and installing solar panels on your roof is not helping to reduce CO2 emissions. It’s merely “cute.” http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/06/mf_qagates/

Oh and Solar energy is not sustainable PV definitely is not. - http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16550-why-sustainable-power-is-unsustainable.html

So once again you're just spreading your own misunderstandings.

Boundarylayer (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(1) Re PR papers on "sustainable" nuclear: p.146 reframing nuclear as "sustainable" Page 162 Nuclear energy as "sustainable". Notice the usage in scare-quotes.

(2) It doesn't matter what MIT says, unless they say that Nuke's are sustainable - you need to get away from the WP:SYN that you are doing by combining informations and reaching your own conclusions from them.

(3) Patrick Moore might think that, but he can't speak for others. And he isn't anything other than an advocate in this context ... speaking about his personal opinion. You used him to infer other peoples opinions.

(4) You are reading into Branson's description. He is not saying that he thinks nuclear is sustainable, but that others do. After rereading it a couple of times, i'm not certain what Branson's view on nuclear is. But here is the gist: Branson's view is the personal opinion of someone who, while notable, doesn't carry much weight - since it is a personal opinion (just as Hansen's, Moore's etc).

(5) You need to find the reference to Hansen specifically stating that nuke's are sustainable - otherwise you cannot state that Hansen says so. There is a difference between thinking that Nukes are an important part of tomorrows energy future, and stating that it is sustainable. (your attempt at linking Hansen's thinking on Nuke's with a price about Sustainable is 100% WP:SYN.

(6) You need to read WP:WEIGHT as well as several other policies here. An article about sustainable energy notes the different power sources that are considered sustainable, and focuses on them according to their WP:WEIGHT in the literature about sustainable energy. As well as describing them in the way that WP:RS's describe these. Doing your own interpretation is not allowed. You should know this by now.

(7) It doesn't matter if Gates consideres Nuclear power is safe. What matters is sustainability. I agree with Gates (&Hansen etc) but that equally doesn't matter.

(8) Solar is alot more than PV - and even that article considers solar as sustainable, which is what is of interest here.

Note that i don't think that nuclear shouldn't be mentioned in this article - there is certainly a segment that frames nuclear as sustainable, therefore it should be mentioned. But this article should only mention nuclear to the proportion that it has in the literature about sustainable energy. That is what WP:WEIGHT is all about. If there is more information, our readers can go to the Nuclear power article, as well as the other articles about the topic.

Finally you need to get away from an advocacy for nuclear type of writing, to a WP:NPOV description of how nuclear is described by the literature about sustainable energy. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

In a nutshell: Write about nuclear proportionally to how the literature of sustainable energy is focusing on it. (WP:WEIGHT) Do not give your own interpretation of things, keep to what WP:RS's are saying directly. (WP:SYN) Stick to a non-advocacy tone, and describe the area in the way that the aggregation of the literature does. (WP:NPOV) [we are not here to advocate for or against a particular type of energy - but here to describe how the literature sees it]. All of these things are a problem with your contribution. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You are abusing your position and you know it. There are many contradictions and falsehoods now stated in the article, once again, thanks only to you.

Boundarylayer (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on the points raised, not on the person who raised them. WP:TPG. --Nigelj (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It is due to their own interpretation, and lens through which they see the world, that they have assigned scare quotes to nuclear power as sustainable. Moreover, they have still yet to supply a single scientific reference to state nuclear power is unsustainable. They suggest they know what Branson meant and have the gist etc. etc. but I'm the one reading into what he says. Finally if someone defines(see the definitions section in the article, if you don't know what the word means) nuclear power as sustainable, without actually saying the word, then they have described a sustainable energy source. As for WP:WEIGHT, Tidal power, Solar PV etc. etc. all get far too much weight in the article seen as they supply negligible amounts of energy and Solar PV isn't sustainable at all. I will supply some peer reviewed papers in the coming days that state nuclear power is more sustainable than Solar PV.

11:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You are not addressing the points raised in my postings. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/lca/Dones_EcoBalance_2006.pdf Sustainabilty of energy sources. Figure 2. Note that nuclear powers over all combined, Economic, Environmental & Social sustainability score is higher than Solar PV, and its sustainability score would be higher still, that is comparable to hydro power, if the hypothetical nuclear proliferation(Social sustainability) concern did not count against nuclear powers over all sustainability value. Due to Nuclear power being ranked higher than Solar PV in sustainabilty, it logically therefore follows that by the WP:WEIGHT criteria, nuclear power(fission) should get a greater amount of weight in the article than Solar PV, and the nuclear power section should also be positioned closer to the top of the article, rather than pushed down to the very end of the article in the very anti-nuclear POV manner that it currently is. As you wrote yourself - Write about nuclear proportionally to how the literature of sustainable energy is focusing on it. (WP:WEIGHT)

Another source is http://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_161.shtml A book titled Sustainable energy by David J. C. MacKay who is the chief scientific adviser to the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Page 162 spends a great deal of time talking about the quantity of Nuclear fuel. Fuel, after all, being the major requirement for sustainable energy considerations. The book is a little old, and many advances in uranium extraction from sea water have occurred since publication. Therefore this is why I spent the majority of the nuclear power section discussing fuel supply.

I have also noted that this entire Sustainable energy article spends most of its time talking about Renewable energy(an entirely separate topic) rather than sustainable energy. If I had the time I would fix this too, but as the nuclear power section was under-represented, and indeed, entirely misrepresented with, need I remind you, constant censorship blank out's by anti-nuclear editors, the nuclear power section demanded a greater degree of urgent attention. So it has nothing to do with advocacy, but everything to do with writing an encyclopedia.

Boundarylayer (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Take your pick --Nigelj (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing but opinion there friend, therefore nothing but anti-scientific reasons, I asked for scientific sources, with scientific reasoning to back them up. Instead you have linked me to a plethora of opinion pieces, none of which offer a single quantifiable reason why nuclear fission power should be classified as unsustainable.

Moreover some of those 'references' are truly laughable - the 'Socialist register' an anti-capitalist opinion publication, and others with titles such as industry propaganda...are you serious? Whereas, on the contrary my sources have scientifically crunched the numbers, and have ranked energy sources by their sustainability. http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/lca/Dones_EcoBalance_2006.pdf Sustainabilty of energy sources. Figure 2. http://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_161.shtml A book titled Sustainable energy by David J. C. MacKay which is a book that also discusses the quantity of nuclear waste too, all of it fitting into a few swimming pools. I'd like to see the Wind or Solar industry manage to produce such a comparably small amount of waste per unit of energy generated.

So I'm still waiting. Where is the science to back up the opinion that nuclear power is unsustainable? All I can find is that it nuclear power is sustainable, moreso than Solar PV for that matter.

Indeed even some Concentrated solar power(CSP) technologies are presently unsustainable due to high water usage in areas where fresh water is scarce. Costs of reducing water use of concentrating solar power to sustainable levels: Scenarios for North Africa http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511003429 Scaling up CSP with wet cooling from ground water will be unsustainable in North Africa. and the paper generally discusses how dry cooling technology produces lower efficiencies and therefore CSP in Africa won't be economical, even under optimistic calculations until ~2030.

Solar energy is not all that sustainable PV definitely is questionable. - http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16550-why-sustainable-power-is-unsustainable.html

Boundarylayer (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A report was published in 2011 by the World Energy Council in association with Oliver Wyman, entitled Policies for the future: 2011 Assessment of country energy and climate policies, which ranks country performance according to an energy sustainability index. The best performers were Switzerland, Sweden and France. All produce electricity with from ~50% to 80% nuclear power in their electricity grid. No mention of (100% renewable) Iceland and no mention of Brazil either in the top three countries.

Sustainability, sustainable development, and engineering emerging technologies

Due to a potential appearance of conflict of interest concerns[10] I have started a Request for Comments on engineering sustainable development. Tim AFS (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Carbon-neutral fuel

@Johnfos: do you have any objections to replacing [11], [12], [13], and [14]? Tim AFS (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thorium

Are there any reliable sources which actually say thorium fission is sustainable? There is already a paragraph about the debate as to whether fission can even be considered sustainable (obviously not, in my humble opinion) and thorium reactors are still very much experimental. Until they get in production and their are reliable sources saying they're sustainable the paragraph inserted in this edit should be removed. 63.228.180.122 (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The word 'sustainable' has been broadly applied to the point where it's almost meaningless. I'm sure there are examples of World Nuclear Association or similar promoting it as sustainable, but I'm not sure that's entirely neutral or consistent with uninvolved sources. In the comparative sense, it's proponents have made a case that it's more sustainable than current reactors, but that needs to be contextualized as being one opinion among many, which it currently is not. Until that has been done, this is an issue of WP:DUE. Listing Thorium reactors, a (basically) new and unproven technology as being in the same category as wind and solar is giving too much attention to a fringe perspective. Ping @E8: to request further discussion. Grayfell (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

There are enough mentions of sustainable Thorium as part of the world's future energy use that it would be difficult to exclude. Algae biofuel started as pie-in-the-sky (and it's still questionable), but no one's proposing removing mention of that type of research (or any other future-oriented research on this page). Note, Thorium fuel cycle has more sources discussing "sustainability" (including projections of potential).--E8 (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point, and I'm not suggesting that thorium be removed completely.

My point is not that thorium energy has been described as sustainable, my point is that it's significance as a sustainable alternative is not a settled question. Right now most Wikipedia articles about thorium fuel seem to be very enthusiastic about the idea, but sources that are skeptical are abundant and easy to find. Listing thorium uncritically as a sustainable energy source is misrepresenting those sources, and is falsely implying that this is commonly accepted as an alternative energy source. It is described by its proponents as sustainable, but it has legitimate detractors, and those perspectives are not well represented here.

Since you mention it, the section on algae could also use some work. It's basically a copy-paste of Biofuel#Algae_biofuels, and it's giving a lot of rose-colored info on a comparatively small field of study. I would suggest that it's also undue weight at this point, and would be better trimmed and template:mained towards algae fuel where it can be weighted appropriately. I agree, though, that removing it would be inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Renewable/sustainable?

Renewable/sustainable?

I see no significant difference between this article and "Renewable energy" and if there is it certainly isn't clear. I would suggest merging the two. The other option is to open up this topic to include possibilities that will run out or do pollute, but are way more sustainable than the current open burning of fossil fuels. (fossil fuel/ carbon capture), (nuclear power/safe operation), (doubling or tripling the number of dams) could we have sustainable mean a little more yellow than green energy.

There is a difference between renewable and sustainable, so the merging wouldn't be a good idea. Renewable energy usually is sustainable, but not necessarily. For example wind power and solar power are clearly sustainable energy sources, whereas the use of biomass can be sustainable and often is, but sometimes is not. For example a palm oil plantation, which is installed in freshly cleared rain forrest wouldn't be sustainable. These differences, also often small, would be lost in a merger. Andol (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)