Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Renewable energy in Scotland

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:28, 30 August 2007.

Renewable energy in Scotland

edit

This article has passed GA, been peer reviewed, given an A rating by WikiProjects Scotland and Energy reviewers, and is a stable and comprehensive review of the subject, which I believe meets the FA criteria. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • Some images have thumbnail sizes set - which they shouldn't have.
    • Is Image:Scotland Harris 1.jpg really the best image to summarise the entire article? - i.e. at the lead. Is it even a good image at all for this article? I'm guessing the idea is to convey the raw potential of wave energy - this image does not even show particularly powerful waves.
  • The image is not the most dramatic or top quality I agree. It does however convey four main ideas - wind, wave, tide and Scotland. It may not be a dramatic scene but it is fairly typical of the territory that has the greatest potential. It also hints at the "battle that pitches environmentalists against conservationists" referred to later on. Do we really want industrial production in this pristine wilderness? I have looked again at Commons and I am familiar with almost all of the 200 or so articles about Scotland's islands and I am not aware of a better one of its type.
A kind person has provided a new image which may incorporate many of these ideas whilst also being of better quality. It is now the 'lead' image. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is really really dark. You can tell it was taken during the day I think due to the gleam on the turbines. I'm no photo expert, but I used the "auto level" enhancement in Adobe photoshop - and the difference is dramatic. Though I'm not trying to be difficult, maybe leave it and if anyone else has a problem with it..? Mark83 11:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly improved - hopefully fixed. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it is both a better quality image and not well placed, but not that it is a better image for the lead. It would imply that the article is mostly about onshore wind, which is a high profile issue but only a small aspect of the subject matter. However if you are not convinced I will swop them.
    • Image:Wind turbine at Nigg.jpg - I suppose the thinking is to show turbines are both manufactured and used in Scotland? It's just my opinion, but I think an image of an actual Scottish wind turbine in operation would be better. Also turbine is a small percentage of the image.
  • Sadly few turbines are manufactured in Britain or Scotland. It is there simply because it is a rare free image of the world's largest wind turbine under construction. I am afraid I lack a boat large enough to motor out and take a snap of its actual operation. Again, if you don't like it it could easily be exchanged for Image:EU_Windmill.jpg above or something similar. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm looking into this.
    • Image:Wfm_m8_motorway.jpg - What is with this image and the caption "The M8 motorway in Glasgow. Vehicles powered from renewable sources not shown."?? i.e. they are all conventionally powered cars? And that's been established how? There's about 68 vehicles in the image, not all of them can be seen. Conjecture to say none of them are powered by renewable sources.
  • I feared my attempt at some light relief might not pass muster with everyone. I am presuming they are all conventially powered, and whilst you are right it is 'conjecture' to say so, the odds are massively stacked in this direction. I have removed the image.
    • I don't see what "One writer described the Hebrides as "the Isles on the Edge of the Sea where men are welcome - if they are hard in body and in spirit tenacious."[84]" adds to the article. Describe the area. Fluffy language not encyclopedic.
  • I am only learning the trade - FA criterion 1a says " "Well written" means that the prose is engaging," and I have tried to provide colourful language from time to time. The word are those of the foremost writer on the subject of the western seaboard of Scotland. I think it makes the point rather better than anything I might be able to offer, but I'll remove it if you like. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tattered flag implies a battle. The fact that it is a Saltire alone indicates that the struggle is perhaps a civil war - an idea that may be unfamiliar to Scots who have all-too-often perceived the political process as being one in which the big-picture decisions are taken elsewhere. Perhaps I am being over-lyrical again. I could get a picture of a line of pylons or some smaller windmills? Suggestions are very welcome. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Recent events" is a list, should be converted to prose? "New data appears on a regular basis. Milestones in 2007:" is not flowing, engaging prose.
  • Latter attended to.
  • The former is trickier. The information appears as and when - my intention was to remove it at the year end and place it in the main body as required. I will reword it as prose now by grouping issues together. Done. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nuclear power mentioned but not linked.
    • "Ethanol cannot be commercially produced as a fuel in Scotland, for the time being at least.[42]" It is not explained in either the article OR the reference as far as I can see.
  • Absolutely right. Westray and Orkney College have some figures on this, but for some reason it is not quoted in the reference provided. I will get one asap. The reason is of course that the yields of sugar are too low. Fixed. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Linking could do with a tidy up - e.g. 1st, 2nd & 3rd instances of "carbon dioxide" not linked, not until 4th instance. Overlinked too - just link 1st instance and no more. Mark83 20:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written, well referenced, good use of free images, and overall very impressively done. My only suggestions would be to perhaps keep the "Summary of Scotland's resource potential" table and notes at the every end of the article (as it seems a fitting end and transitions into the references, etc). This would mean moving the "Recent Events" section before the table.

The Recent Events section could also have its many one sentence paragraphs merged into larger paragraphs.

In the interest of full disclosure, I was involved in the peer review of this article back in April and made a few edits (<10) to it then. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Oppose: It's clear that a lot of good work has gone into this article, but I don't think it is yet worthy of FA status. There are two related problems. Firstly, the article talks too much about non-renewables such as carbon sequestration, clean coal, and nuclear power. These are clearly off the topic of the article. Secondly, the article is not comprehensive in its discussion of renewables. There is just so much more that could be said about the actual deployment of technologies such as hydroelectricity and wind power in particular. I couldn't find the answer to basic questions such as: What are the ten largest hydro installations in Scotland, in terms of installed capacity? What are the ten largest wind farms in Scotland? -- Johnfos 21:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Johnfos. I'm afraid I can't agree. First of all, as the intro to the section says even if they are not 'renewables' (and some people argue that they are, even if you and I don't), the more quickly they are rolled out the less investment is available, and the less political will there is, to support genuine renewables. The nuclear energy section is simply a sentence. Carbon offsetting is a big issue. Even Global Compact companies are on this bandwagon. Countries such as Norway are likely to include sequestration as part of their ambitious CO2 reduction targets, and the section is essentially there to point out some of the problems this may cause. Hydrogen, we may agree, is likely to be crucial to any serious long-term renewables strategy. I am more than willing to improve this section but to remove or significantly reduce it would not make sense to me. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondly, the article was not conceived as a list of power stations, but as an essay on the prospects for the various technologies. The former exists elsewhere, and although it is not a great article, I was remiss in not including it. I have now added it to the 'See also' section. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MacDui. You are quite right in that the article is "an essay on the prospects for the various technologies". It is much more an essay than an encyclopedia article. And it focuses on future prospects much more than what is actually happening in the present. Perhaps the article should be called "Prospects for renewable energy in Scotland".

In terms of other renewable energy articles which are GAs, Renewable energy in Iceland, Renewable energy commercialization and Renewable energy commercialization in Australia, there are none which discuss carbon sequestration, clean coal, and nuclear power. And the world's single most authoritative source on the matter, the International Energy Agency, does not classify these as renewable.[1][2] There is a skewed emphasis in this article, and so much that could be said about what is happening with renewables in Scotland just isn't being said.

I can't believe that there is only one paragraph on hydro. The carbon sequestration section is longer than the hydro section. How can this possibly make sense to you? -- Johnfos 08:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well first of all, you are absolutely right about the short section on Hydro. It remains the second largest producer. Its contemporary visibility is very low as the growth potential is extremely limited but that is no excuse. More now added. It seems surprising there is not an article on the topic, but so it goes.
Arguably the sequestration sub-section does go on a bit and I have removed part of it that simply provides more data. I don’t know the Icelandic scene at all well, although they and Governor Schwarzenegger seem to be leading the field in hydrogen promotion. I imagine their article does not mention sequestration because the have no oil fields and therefore no-one is seriously talking about the road to renewables being paved via this method. (Likewise Australia?) Let me be quite clear, I am not either attempting to argue that it is renewable, or that it is desirable. I am however making the point (apparently not very well) that the issue already is, and is likely to continue to be a major factor in the ongoing and very high profile debate that is happening in Scotland. I am more than happy to continue to dialogue about its tenor, size, focus etc. but in an environment where there is intense competition for political and commercial support for technologies which address climate change, and which in the public’s mind tend to be lumped together, I can’t imagine an article that failed to mention the subject at all making any sense.
With nuclear, all I have done is make the point that it is not a renewable fuel, although some try to argue that it is. I don’t think that is ‘off-topic’.
With clean coal, again this is a huge issue that surely needs mentioning. Possibly because to the best of my knowledge there is no article about the Scottish response to climate change generally it goes on a bit, (a la sequestration) and again I have cut it back.
Perhaps this dialogue is question of our starting points - you may be looking at it from the point of view of someone who is deeply concerned about renewable energy and don't want the issue muddied by extraneous information. That's fair enough, but I am also trying to look at it from the point of view of someone interested in Scotland, who wants to know what the renewable scene is all about, not just in its purest sense, but in its specific political and commercial context.
Finally, in a more general response to the above I have renamed the section headers to make the ‘challenges and opportunities’ issue that these and other technologies offer to renewables more explicit. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, MacDui, for those changes. The issue is resolved now as far as I am concerned and I hope you get FA... In terms of where I am coming from, I simply wanted to make sure that basic information should be included and more speculative info not given undue weight. regards, Johnfos 04:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both images now removed. The former is easy to replace if needed. There is no useful replacement for the Pelamis image available on Commons that I can see and candidly I have no idea how to get one. I have a photo of one at sea taken from Orkney, but it is all but indistinguishable from the waves. I'll try and get hold of a picture of a manufacturers offices or something along those lines. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. They don't say where any of those images came from. --Carnildo 03:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—prose needs attention throughout. Just look at the opening few sentences—messy.
  • Tony - I am somewhat in awe of your writing skills, but taking a deep breath, here goes.
    • "In addition to an existing installed capacity of 1.3 Gigawatts (GW) of hydro-electric schemes, Scotland has an estimated potential of 36.5 GW for wind and 7.5 GW tidal power, 25% of the estimated total capacity for the European Union and up to 14 GW of wave power potential (10% of the EU capacity)." Let me get this right: are these averages? No one would run a hydro plant full bore throughout the day: it's ideal as peak production. Wind and tidal are highly variable. I'd like to see this expressed as an average, or better, as GW hours per ?year or whatever is standard.
  • No. As it says, they are estimates of 'installed capacity'. As I noted on the talk page when the article was created "I have attempted to provide as coherent a picture as possible in the circumstances by, for example, sticking mostly to predictions of maximum output in GW. Using energy productions in TWh (i.e. of actual production) might be more useful in some ways but would tend to obscure the underlying assumptions unless every reference included a measure for maximum output, capacity factor and assumed production, which might prove cumbersome." Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Potential of 36.5 GW of, not for, even though repeated.

The back-ellipsis of "power" (wind power) is awkward.

  • I am sure you are right, but I don't know where this problem is.

The EU figure is expressed within commas and then within parentheses: confusing. Remove "the" before "EU". Remove "existing". Remove "even" and the preceding comma.

"Natural resource base" is equated with "renewable energy"—no.

Add "fossil-" before "fuel" to make it clear?

The subsequent sentence refers to "the resource": which one is that?

Try to find others to help with the copy-editing. Tony 13:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have made such a request and I will of course remove any further glitches I spot.

And PS, while I'm on this topic, can you remove the thousands of "ons" from "Retrieved on [date]". Some of them are already free of this idle word here. Seems to be a scourge on WP. Tony 13:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I may have spoken to soon. I normally use the standard <ref>Citation</ref> tags, but the 'on' would seem to be a feature of the {{citeweb}} template - hence its growing prominence. Is there a way to amend the templates preferences that you know of? Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the assumption that there isn't I have added 'on' to the few remaining example of the former. I agree it is unnecessary word but I don't think I can be blamed if editors chose to spend their time changing the former to the latter. It does not seem to breach any policy or guideline that I am aware of and at least the usage is now consistent. Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to raise the matter of this silly "on" word at the template. That's good if the thousands of examples can be fixed at a stroke.
  • I’ll watch for developments (and assist if need be). Grumbled at them as it seems a bit sleepy.

"Renewable fuel"? Guess you're referring to ethanol?

  • More likely biodiesel in Scotland.

Unsure I like this distinction between seasonal fuels and fuels that form over different time spans. I'm trying to grapple with this implied maximum output in the "estimated potential", versus the "installed capacity". It assumes all wind and tidal turbines going full bore ... in that respect, it's not a realistic measure, since you can run a coal-fired station at full bore 24/7, but the output of the others needs to be equated with this as an estimated average, surely. I'm only a lay-person, but it seems like common sense. Tony 13:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Happily, the calculations do not make this assumption, unhappily they make numerous others that are hard to assess. Thus with say a nuclear facility with an installed capacity of 1 MW, you can assume that its potential energy production is going to be close to 1 MW x 24 hours per day X 365 days per year. Lets say its ‘capacity factor’ (i.e. likely run time at full bore) is 95%. This gives c. 8.3 GWh per annum.
If you have a 1 MW windmill instead you get 1 x 24 x 365 x a capacity of factor of say 20% on the east coast (where there isn’t much wind) and 45% or more on the west coast, (where there is). Perhaps on average you will get 30% and c. 2.6 GWh per annum.
The ‘Potential Energy’ column is a series of estimates based on these average capacity factors for each technology. Unfortunately the providers of the data rarely make their assumptions explicit, and the numbers do vary. If they were reliable and from an agreed common source it might make much more sense to use the potential energy figures in the main text, but they are neither so the ‘installed capacity’ figures tend to get used - although this results in regular mental arithmetic exercises if you are attempting to compare the technologies. It is evidently not obvious from the article how this works and I will see what can be done to make it less arcane.
Now attempted in a note following the summary table. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to try using {{Ref label}} and {{Note label}} tags to put in more detailed notes that have wikilinked superscripts (so the material is accessible within the text to interested persons). For examples, see Demosthenes (FA) or List of Pennsylvania state parks (FL). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion - I have added such a beast for the above 'installed capacity' note so that it links in with the lead para. I'll check over it and see if I can spot other possible uses. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Having worked in some aspects of the renewables industry, I recognise that it covers all of the areas. The article is accurate, informative, very well written and referenced. --Bill Reid | Talk 12:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Renewable energy... into the mainstream p. 9.
  2. ^ International Energy Agency (2007). Renewables in global energy supply: An IEA facts sheet, OECD, p. 3.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Renewable_energy_in_Scotland&oldid=1078805378"