This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There is plenty of work to be done on completing the 'Energy Topics' section. I can see some merit in the approach the French have taken on this - see Portail:Énergie - which is similar to the Medicine portalGralo 02:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
OK; have now done a large part of this - a little more to follow when I get time, unless anyone wants to volunteer (Energy storage & Energy conversion devices - engines, generators, etc - seem to be the two main gaps) Gralo 06:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I expanded the United States Green Building Council page and organized it into sections. Hope this helps. Not sure if appropriate to remove the cleanup tag there? User:DuBois 11:09, 6 May 2007 (PDT)
Sponsorship/Support
It could be a good way to organize the energy portal if it would have a "sponsored programs" list in wikiversity. I've been working with Wikiversity:Institute of Construction a litle, and I would like to know your opinion. thanks, WiKimik 15:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Watching the portal
When you put a watch on the portal it doesn't flag changes to the separate parts - is the only way to watch to put a watch on the sub-pages? sbandrews 18:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
One of the inventors of true hydrogen fuel technolgoies
(deadlock problems soluted, problem of hydrogen storage soluted.
The created hydrogen fuel is hundreds times more simple and hundreds times more cheap.
Approved on practice and on top expert level. Documents. videodiscs exists. documents and
describtion all was sent.)
Segey Bloomkin contacted all over world, all hydrogen associations, businessmen, goverments etc
many times.
No support! No even feedback!
So Please You now think of it.
All existed in world hydorgen fuel technologies are absolute deadlock, because
problem of hydrogen storage and technological simplicity is not soluted by nobody
in world.
All existed in world hydorgen fuel technologies are overall need hundreds times more labour input
and hundreds times more expensive than gasoline.
Than, we the true inventors, created the real hydrogen fuel, we soluted deadlock problems
and storage, we created true simple and cheap hydrogen fuel(hundreds times more simple
and hundred times more cheap than any analogue)
And we contacted everybody everywhere, with documents officialy.
No even feedback! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergey bloomkin (talk • contribs) 18:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
energy efficiency project
Hello I was wanting to help create a few pages on energy efficiency topics. I work for a non-profit organization, RESNET, and want to make sure these topics are fairly writtten and are not advertisements. Right now I am proposing to create a page on energy efficiency credits/white tags, forward utility capacity trading, and home energy ratings. Once again, these pages will not be advertisements, and I would appreciate contributions from everyone. I think it would be beneficial for wikipedia to have pages on these topics, and I will gladly write them up, if there are no objections.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.76.128 (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2007
I think this is a great idea, and would encourage you to proceed. It may be that Gralo, who is very experienced, would have some input too. Would "energy efficiency credits/white tags" be one page or two? Happy to discuss further. Don't forget to sign your posts with 4~, and please consider getting a username... Johnfos 00:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
More information on energy efficiency topics would certainly be welcome. Before starting may I suggest you take a good look through the exiting articles first to check what is already exists, and perhaps get a few extra ideas. See House Energy Rating for example (Australian, not US). Looking through the information at Wikipedia:Help may also help. And good luck! If you have any queries, you can ask on my talk page. Gralo 01:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes energy efficiency credits/white tags could even merge with white certificates which has a page, but has only UK information I believe. We could do the same thing for home energy rating. All we would have to do is add information about the United States. So what I think I'll do is create a very brief rough draft and post it on discussion pages, and we can take it from there. Efficiency84
In concept I'd suggest putting the US information on a separate national page, then a brief summary on the 'global' page linking to the US article. I'll look forward to reading your draft! Gralo 12:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
New article announcements
Maybe we need section for new article announcements? Beagel 06:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be good if it could be bot-generated - perhaps you've seen something on another portal that could be adapted? Trying to keep it updated manually would be time consuming if it is to contain only genuinely new articles. Gralo 10:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Good idea; I've left him a note. I see that the Geography portal is using one of his bots too. Gralo 18:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Why do people not build more houses with wood?
Homes and construction use around 30% of the world's energy. Some of it embodied in the materials we build with. When we choose concrete, steel, plastic we are using materials that require significant amounts of energy to manufacture and transport. But if we use wood, we are using a material that is renewable, actually sucks CO2 out of the air when it grows, embodies it in its fibres and does not require anywhere near as much energy to manufacture as concrete or steel. the result, less energy consumption and less CO2 in the air. Did I mention it was renewable. Plant more trees, use more wood, and use less fossil fuels in the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.156.47 (talk) at 15:21, 10 July 2007
Not really the place for this discussion, however... your analysis is correct, but embodied energy is not the full story. Depending on climate the amount of energy used to heat of cool the building over its lifetime is often very much more than the energy embodied in its materials. Masonry and concrete can add thermal mass to help cut this energy requirement, so timber is not automatically the best choice - life cycle assessment is required. See also the Passivhaus standard. Gralo 22:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, not the place for this discussion, but thermal mass primarily helps if it is insulated from the outside environment, and most such walls are not. Thermal flywheeling can be used in some instances, but that is highly dependent on the location and season. --Skyemoor 17:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Request that image be changed
Having a nuclear power plant as the image for the energy portal is way out of date. Oil is still king today. Tomorrow, who knows, but it is highly unlikely that it will ever be nuclear, because of the many problems it has. Hydroelectricity recently passed nuclear, and coal is likely to pass oil. 199.125.109.64 21:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The image used is intended to encompass the entire subject of energy in a single, visually attractive picture. Not easy in practice for several reasons, including the diversity of energy supply and energy use, the environmental, social and political issues involved, and the relatively limited number of images with appropriate permision. The 'plug and battery' image used for energy across Wikipedia for energy related articles is not ideal for encapsulating this, and neither is the power station image currently used.
The existing image was actually selected not because it was a nuclear station, or in France, but for the cooling towers - the main visual component - which are common to many types of power plant, and which also convey to some extent the relationship between fuel use and the environment (i.e. the cooling tower emissions). The photo is also taken from a sufficient distance for the fuel type to be unclear to the casual observer. While the fact that it is a nuclear plant is incidental, the renewed political interest in nuclear, and concerns over its proliferation, do also add a further shade of meaning.
The ideal image would probably be a montage of several photos. That would require a larger composite image to maintain visibility, and would also involve issues of scaling in different screen resolutions to be considered.
I should add that the second reverted image - being a graph - while very pertinant to the topic, was not a visually attractive photo; the second because many readers unfamiliar with the subject would probably not realize what it was (not a problem elsewhere, in context and with a subtitle), apart from being very clearly oil-specific.
Electric generation is only about a fourth of energy use. A montage of photos is not a good idea. Many reports on energy use that approach and it makes them very confusing to view. Pick another image. You don't seem to like the two that I proposed. Rotate through a bunch of images. Use an old water wheel. 199.125.109.64 01:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Following is a list of proposed images:
Nuclear Power Plant Cattenom a.png - not recommended
Oil well.jpg - not recommended
World energy consumption, 1970-2025, EIA.png - not recommended
Referring to the image that is used on that template, which is used on all energy related article talk pages. None of the above were ever intended to be used on a talk page, other than Oil well.jpg, which is currently used there. So, please discuss these images here, and any proposed images for the template there. I am sure that a lot of wikipedia users do not even know there is a talk page for each article, despite the discussion tab. The discussion here is only about the image at the top right of Portal:Energy/Intro199.125.109.22 00:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The article on Peak oil was recently awarded Good Article status with the help of myself, Gralo, Beagel, and a few others over the last month or so. I have awarded minor barnstars to Gralo, and Beagel for dropping in and making minor edits. I have also thanked newcomer Mattplayne for his contribution. Thanks to all who helped. If you feel someone else contributed in the cleanup effort, please feel free to award them a barnstar for their efforts. I will make the changes requested changes requested by the reviewer.
I think it would be a noble goal to eventually improve all of the Energy Portal articles to at least Good Article status to improve the overall quality of core articles pertaining to energy. I also nominated the article to be included in the 2007 CD version of Wikipedia, which is distributed to schools.
Are there any other articles in the Energy Portal that really need a good clean-up?? Kgrr 14:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. Actually I think that in future only GA, A or FA class articles with high or top importance should be selected to the Energy Portal. I also invite all participants to assess the energy articles adding {{WikiProject Energy}} tag. Probably you could take some B-class energy article to improve it to GA status.
I think we probably need also some kind of notice board to notify about peer reviews, and GA and FA nominations.Beagel 19:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
In principle I agree with the 'GA+' concept too. Energy seems to have far fewer high quality articles than many other subjects, probably because there are fewer Wikipedians working on the topic - with the exception of a few hot issues. Due to this it's not been practical to do this yet, but updating them after the event would be a big improvement - and many of them do need further work.
To concentrate effort, the 'Collaboration of the Month' concept could be worth a try (for example Wikipedia:Mathematics Collaboration of the Month), starting with each of the currently selected articles in turn (except the few already up to standard)? Taking up Beagle's idea, perhaps a monthly notice could be posted in all 4 related wikiprojects? In fact, asking the Wikiproject members if they would like to contribute in this way may be a good first step, in case the answer is no.
I've gone ahead and promoted this portal despite some of the concerns raised at FPCAN. I'd strongly urge that the portal maintainers adopt the suggestions made there to remove meta-sections from the main tab to another. See for example Portal:Australia.--cj | talk 02:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Energy Intensive?
I disagree with the scope of the following statement in the article, "Since economic activity is energy intensive, ". 1) What does 'energy-intensive' mean? 2) Many forms of economic activity are not 'energy intensive', such as software development, insurance, legal, retail and wholesale sales, and a wide range of other service categories. Hence, deletion of this sentence fragment would improve the article. --Skyemoor 17:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Please propose changes to the lead article on the portal here. It is not the intention of the article to discuss all energy related issues, but to simply paint a broad picture of energy. 199.125.109.47 04:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
If you have any issues with any of my edits, please refer to Help:Reverting, which states, "Do not revert good faith edits... unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof." Also see WP:OWNERSHIP. And it would help if you registered an account, so that we can start to take you seriously.--Skyemoor 02:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Current text:
Energy is most often used in the context of energy resources, their development, consumption and conservation. Since many economic activities including manufacturing and transportation can be energy intensive, energy security and price are key concerns. In recent years increased awareness of global warming has led to energy becoming a pressing international issue.
New text in lede. --Skyemoor 02:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Your proposed wording, shown below is not acceptable:
You are including too many extraneous items. Also your image leaves many readers who are using 640x480 or 800x600 displays with one or two words per line next to the massive image. Just because it "looks better" to you does not mean that it is even useable by everyone. Please make edits here and get consensus before implementing them. The only image that has any support is the one shown. The collage has not even been proposed above, and is strongly opposed. One thing I would like to add is that I could care less what image is used, as long as everyone agrees on it, and it does not cause problems. 199.125.109.73 06:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
How do you define 'extraneous items' and which do you believe fit that category? Your vague dismissal is exceedingly inadequate. The image has majority support at the correct discussion page (see Template_talk:WikiProject_Energy#Good_compromise, so your insistence on your own image is disruptive. You cannot make up your own rules about who can change the page and who cannot; I've shown you the WP policies and guidelines, but you seem to refuse to follow them. If someone makes a vote of 'strongly opposed', why do you believe that carries more weight than someone who votes 'support'? There appears to be no image that everyone will agree on (the one you insist on is supported by all), so learn to avoid WP:OWNERSHIP, as has been mentioned to you in several postings. --Skyemoor 10:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Consumption and Depletion are redundant, as are global warming and greenhouse gases. There is no need to include four when two suffice. Strongly is very different from support. And the fact that there is no opposition to the image used indicates that everyone does agree. If you oppose it you have not said anything. 199.125.109.81 03:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I differ. Consumption merely refers to the use of an energy source, and renewable energy is not depleted. Depletion is the reduction of non-renewable energy sources. Major difference. While related, GHG is not the same as Global Warming. No opposition is far from meaning everyone agrees, though you are a new user and understandly are new to how WP is run. The lack of voting on an entry usually means that it is not considered worth the comment. --Skyemoor 01:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Correct discussion page? There are two locations under discussion and they involve separate images and have separate discussions. This is the correct place to discuss this image and the other location you have indicated above is the correct place to discuss the other location and image. I don't make up rules, and I do follow them. You are free to indicate your support for any of the proposed images below, propose new ones, or indicate opposition. In a week I will check back to see if you or anyone else has responded. Please do not trash the portal in the meantime, which by the way is now a featured portal. 199.125.109.81 03:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Since you are new, you obviously haven't read WP:AGF and WP:OWNERSHIP. Do so before you edit again. --Skyemoor
Please use <strike>strikeout</strike> to remove opposition or support, if it changes, because as of today images will be rotated through any of the below which do not indicate any opposition. 199.125.109.84 16:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Lets review the discussion. I requested a new image and proposed two possible images. Another user did not like the first and the second can not be used because it is copyrighted. I proposed a new image, and have not received even one comment opposing it, so it has been used on the Intro page. If you don't like it, join the discussion, do not start an edit war, which by the way I will not fall for. Please propose images and recommendations below: 199.125.109.81 02:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The numbers shown are for reference and do not indicate any preference.
Oppose. Too limiting, as it only focuses on one energy source. --Skyemoor
Recommend be used for short periods - oppose because Nuclear power is extremely offensive to many people, and desireable by others. 199.125.109.84 16:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion is unclear; does this mean you support it, or does it mean something else? If something else, what would it mean?--66.225.251.176 02:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Support. There is no one source of energy that supplies the majority of the world's energy, so we must recognize the diversity in energy sources. --Skyemoor 12:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Strongly oppose Surprise surprise - a collage is difficult to parse, it is too confusing, and has to be made too big for each individual panel to be viewed. Look at the cover of any magazine. How many have a single photgraph and how many use a collage? Almost all use a single photograph because of the above reason - it is easier to understand. Please add images at the end of the list, instead of re-ordering in the order of your preference, and please do not remove comments, again. 199.125.109.58 16:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
'Strongly' carries no more weight than the usual 'support' or 'oppose'. You believe that a collage is difficult for you to parse, though you provide no evidence this is the case for the majority of the readership. Any unattributed comments will be removed. If you want to add 'not recommended', then do so in one of your comments. --Skyemoor 20:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Strongly is a way of giving relative strength. 199.125.109.84 16:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion has no greater strength than anyone else's, even if you put 'strongly' in front of it. --Skyemoor 02:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Support. This is ridiculous. It is more important to have a picture that everyone can agree with then presentability.--Jorfer 14:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason why we can not find a photo that everyone agrees with. Which single images are acceptable to you? 199.125.109.84 01:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. I will agree with any of these four single images used for collage, but collage as such is not a good solution. Beagel 16:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
8. Escher Waterfall.jpg - this image had been proposed but it is copyrighted.
Sorry but you are mistaken. The discussion on that page is unrelated to this discussion. 199.125.109.135 04:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Comments from uninvolved editors
I'm sorry, I don't understand what I'm supposed to be commenting on. I get that people disagree on which image should be used; but used for what? I'm thinking probably Template:WikiProject_Energy, but, if that's the case, why isn't the discussion on that talk page relevant? I edited the title of this section, adding an RFC statement on the front, to make it easier to find, and I put a label "comments from uninvolved editors" down here. I'll comment when I get a clearer idea of what is going on. Enuja 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - and yes the discussion is on what image to use, although I would not go so far as to call it a disagreement, but not on the project template, but here, on the Portal:Energy, at the top right of the Introduction section, on the Portal:Energy/Intro page. 199.125.109.83 21:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
In that case, image #7 at 250 or 300 pixels seems the best choice. At that size, you can see all of the images, and together they communicate some of the diversity of sources humans use for electrical energy. I actually think the idea of a collage is a very good one (not for the template, because that image has to be too small). If someone wanted to make a different collage, including the featured picture Image:NesjavellirPowerPlant_edit2.jpg (full disclosure, I seconded that image from picture peer review), and choice #4 Image:Beryl Alpha platform.jpg might be a good idea. Enuja 23:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
My comment about a magazine cover points out the problem with using a collage, it is not illustrative, and it takes too long to look at each image. People magazine of course always uses a collage because they want as many photos on the cover as possible, but most magazines use a single photo because that is what works best. The purpose of the photo is to provide an illustration, not to list all the energy sources and uses. To me creating a collage is a solution in search of a problem, and should not be used. I would like to hear what other people think, so far we have two who like a collage and two who don't. 199.125.109.84 01:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
While it makes sense to try and get opinions from more people, if you're counting, I count two against the collage (you and User:Beagel) and three for the collage (me, Jorfer and User:Skyemoor). However, Wikipedia tries to operate on consensus, not on voting, so, hopefully, people can agree on a good image to use instead of voting on it. Enuja 02:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
That's what I would like to see, and have proposed four new images for consideration. There are others as well I could add... 199.125.109.135 02:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Unless there are any objections, some new photos will be added into the rotation. If you see any you don't like just revert and it will be taken out of the rotation. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Oil shale is a Good Article candidate now. Your comments are most welcome.Beagel 10:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Help, please...
I'm looking for designs for hot climates. I'm living in a desert where
heat and sun rays are becoming perceptibly stronger,
humidity is rising steadily,
cooling by water-evaporation (Desert Coolers) no longer works, and
energy costs are becoming prohibitively expensive.
In particular I'm looking for designs or ideas that can be easily grafted onto an existing building with a minimum of resources, expense and technical skills or professional knowledge (no architect or cement mixer). For example: in summer many houses in our area cover sun facing walls/roofs with black, blue or green shade netting used in agriculture.
Please point me in the right direction. Thank you, Shir-El too 10:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk pages are for talking about improving articles, not for asking questions about the subject. But I'll try to answer your question anyway.
The US Department of Energy has a nice page about passive solar cooling, as does the Sustainable Building Sourcebook. When humidity levels are high and cooling with water is not effective, you can turn to shading, as you said, as well as ventilation. Taking advantage of the winds in the area would help. Opening windows where prevalent winds go through and using fans are obvious solutions. Also, heat rises, so it's a good idea to let it escape somewhere near the top of the house.
I've also heard of wind catchers, in traditional Persion architecture, that direct wind into the house for ventilation. Obviously this is an architectural thing, but if you're innovative, it might be possible to incorporate something similar into an already existing building.
I would recommend installing a lot of photovoltaics; with the energy they generate you can use conventional air conditioning and electric vehicles for transportation. 199.125.109.45 16:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both. I'd not have yelled help unless I'd bumbled around for a while getting nowhere, but your comment on talk page use is well taken. As are your suggestions. Cheers, Shir-El too 00:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
New sections for new articles (found by bot) and for announcements (nominations for good and featured articles, peer and expert reviews; deletion and merging discussions etc) are created. I would like to ask to add all relevant information also there (in addition to the normal procedure, of course). You are also welcome to share your thoughts how to improve and further update this portal. Beagel (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Domestic AC power plugs and sockets and Nuclear fusion are both currently rated A class but both are quite poorly referenced. I think that they are worth to be nominated to be FAC, if better referenced. However, without additional references they should be downgraded to the B-class. Please help with adding missing references.Beagel (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Automobile Mileage Reporting
While not a direct edit of the Energy Portal, the Wikiproject Automobile discussion page is having a discussion about whether or not to include fuel economy as part of the Automotive Infobox. If interested, please share your opinion. 198.151.13.8 (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Gases
We have a section for Natural Gas but not for other gases, such as Syngas. Could we have a new category, either for synthetic gases or for synthetic fuels (to include liquid fuels)? Biscuittin (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Energy portal icon
I notice that many of the titles listed in the energy portal do not have an energy portal icon on the article. Is this just an oversight? Biscuittin (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome to add missing tags of Energy Portal.Beagel (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Oil category reorganization
I've been looking over the catergories for oils, lubricants and automotive chemicals, and the category structure is a total mess. There are circular pointers that create confusion like lubricants under oil and oil under lubricants. This needs to be cleaned up. As far as oil goes I think there should be three groups under oil, energy, lubricants and durable goods. This will allow a orderly flow of categories for the folks editing energy articles based on oil, for those folks working on lubrication and those working on durable goods (e.g., plastics, fibers). I propose an effort to rebuild the category structure for these three groups. We already have the categories, they just need to be reorganized. Thoughts? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 11:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Could someone from this group take a look at United_States_federal_register_of_greenhouse_gas_emissions ? It doesn't seem to be a proper article -- its mostly text from one or two federal reports. Is the "US Federal Register..." a real thing? If so, then can someone attempt to write a proper article?
Right now, I think it should be nominated for deletion. But maybe something can be made of it.Ehlkej (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Pumpjack article
Hi, could someone review the pumpjack article? I'd like to improve it, not sure what else to add. TastyCakes (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Country specific nuclear information
There is a discussion how to organize the country specific nuclear energy information. Your opinion is welcome.Beagel (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Units for crude oil
I've noticed that the articles in energy portal routinely convert barrels to cubic meters. I'm familiar with Wp:Mos#Conversions and its value. But I feel it's misplaced when discussing crude oil. The industry convention is to quote volumes in barrels. I've never seen the the industry quote volume in metric units. The "metric equivalent" convention is to quote in metric tons. I would propose we keep to a convention of quoting in barrels, and optionally include a conversion to metric tons. Needless to say, such a conversion is dependent on the API of the crude. Alternatively, if we must ALWAYS convert to some metric equivalent, then I propose we use an "industry standard" conversion rate of 7.33 (understanding the "real value" could be 10% off). Where would be the right forum to discuss this? Has it been discussed before?--Work permit (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm I believe European oil companies (such as Shell) quote volumes in tonnes while shipping, but refer to volumes in the ground in cubic meters. I've seen production volumes of both oil and gas given in cubic meters (next to the bbls). I don't know how they convert a volume to a mass measurement for shipping, perhaps they don't and the two cannot be directly compared (except by average). TastyCakes (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You had me curious about Shell's 2007 annual report which I see reporting information in barrels. In their Financial and operations information 2007 they use barrels and then quote a "metric quivalent" of tonnes/year in their summary total . They may use cubic meters for crude oil somewhere, but you can see it's rare. I'm sure I could dig up an example, but it I think it would be more like an "exception that proves the rule".
I certainly agree that gas is quoted in cubic meters, as well as cubic feet (and NEVER in "barrels"!). A quick google search on crude oil mcm shows no references to crude oil being quoted in millions of cubic meters. A similar search on gas mcm shows plenty of "correct" hits for natural gas.--Work permit (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
or just sticking with barrels because the canadian industry uses cubic meters internally?
Although gas is occasionally included in "barrels of oil equivalent", BOE, but not in the context we're discussing here. TastyCakes (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's a unit of "energy", like MMBTU (which natural gas happens to be also measured in).--Work permit (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Requesting a fresh set of eyes on Grid Modernization navbox
This navbox is used on several articles of high importance. There has been a one month dispute over the question of whether the "Rural electrification" article meets the criteria for inclusion in the template. Full discussion is on Template_talk:Electricity_grid_modernization. It probably needs a fresh set of eyes, as the current personalities appear to be at an impasse after a month of effort at reaching a consensus position. Thanks. -J JMesserly (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Requesting a fresh set of eyes on Grid Modernization navbox
This navbox is used on several articles of high importance. There has been a one month dispute over the question of whether the "Rural electrification" article meets the criteria for inclusion in the template. Full discussion is on Talk page for Grid Modernization navbox. It probably needs a fresh set of eyes, as the current personalities appear to be at an impasse after a month of effort at reaching a consensus position. Thanks. -J JMesserly (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Please, can someone copy edit this article. I also think you [Portal:Energy's team] should give top priority on China-Energy relate article. China is the 2nd major energy actor on the world, but we actually lack of article on these issues. I'm currently writing a very long and well sourced China in Africa, where copy edit is also welcome :] ,
Hi, everybody! I would like to create a {{Infobox Hydroelectric Power Plant}}. Can somebody who is interested in subject help me!?
I know generally how to make a template, but something like Template:Infobox Military Structure, that needs Template documentation (documentation subpage) is to much for me. The template would have main sections like:
GENERAL DATA (name, location, image, caption, map type, latitude, longitude, map size, map caption, type, coordinates...)
HIDROLOGICAL DATA (catchment area, annual flow rate...)
RESERVOIR DATA (max. operating level, max. spillway level, capacity...)
POWER GENERATION DATA (gross head, installed capacity, mean annual output...)
DATA ON STRUCTURES (name of the dam, type, volume, dam lenght, capacity,...)
DESIGN DOCUMENTATION (who made a project for Hydroelectric Power Plant...)
EQUIPMENT (what companies gave equipment - turbines, generators...)
CONTRACTOR (what companies built it...)
POWER PLANT COMMISSIONING (the year of construction start, changes and renovations...)
It would be interesting if somebody for example click on Pelton-Francis (turbine type) in infobox, and than wiki link show him Pelton-Francis article, and so on... I think it would improve Energy Portal articles. Please help me if you can. Thanks. --Kebeta (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but are these articles about the same thing or two related but significantly different systems?
The Green certificate page says that they are "also known as Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) in the USA", but the Renewable Energy Certificates article clearly states that they are only a program in the US. Could someone clarify this? Perhaps there could be a main article about the concept and subsections or other articles about the various systems using that concept.
Thanks, — sligocki (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
What does this mean? "So energy conserving strategies will remain the primary and central way in which people resolve energy supply or distribution constraints: Physically, the kWh not used is always by definition the safest to rely on, the easiest to supply and the cheapest to consume, and it always will be." The second half of this sentence makes no sense to me. "...the kWh not used..."? 216.27.149.159 (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
That colon probably should have been a period and I wikilink'd kWh. What I get from the context is that excess energy not being used by consumers because it is either not needed or lost in transmission is the best source of additional energy.--NortyNort(Holla) 12:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Reducing CO2 footprint with Geothermal Heat Pump - how to leverage offpeak electricity
I have eliminated my use of 2600 gallons of fuel a year by installing a direct exchange geothermal heat pump. This reduces my CO2 footprin.
I am interested in feedback on the feasability of further reducing costs and CO2 usage by pumping heat out of the ground at night with offpeak (and lower CO2 generating) electricity to a large water store (I estimate 2,000 gallons) and then pumping that heat into the house during peak hours
The specific question is whether a heat pump that normally pumps heat from the ground at about 53F can be used to pump heat from a water tank at a higher temperature.. say 70F.
At present, the template used for the energy portal is :
I propose to change the image link in the template to Energy_icon.svg The reason is simple: the crystal energy image shows a electrochemical battery, thus making the image better suited for a (new to be made) energy storage template. Also, the image I made is easier to modify for "sub-templates" (ie Energy in Spain, ...)
KVDP (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I think we should keep the present energy portal image. Johnfos (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I also prefer the current image. Beagel (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Besides the image for the energy template, fuel-based energy storage can be equipped with the image: . The crystal energy image can then be used for electrochemical battery-based energy storage.
There is an ongoing discussion at Portal:Renewable energy about the formation of a task force within WikiProject Energy. If you would like to comment or participate, please join the discussion. --Elekhh (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Germany
German government plans total nuclear shutdown by 2022. 188.118.154.207 (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion and move request about the names of wind farms in Australia. Your comments are welcome. Beagel (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Template:EnergyPortal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
