Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy/Archive 2

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:EnergyPortal

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) 17:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Assessment of energy related articles

As of today, there are 11,812 articles tagged with the WP:Energy banner. However, that number of articles means that there is a need for assistance for maintenance to keep a quality of assessments. I would like to call participants of WP:Energy to assist taking care of this task. There are following things you could do:

  • Checking and assessing new articles. All new articles found by bot are transcluded at Wikipedia:Energy#New articles (found by bot).
  • Verifying bot tagging. In the Category:Automatically assessed Energy articles there are 1,628 articles tagged by bot. All these articles should be confirmed if they are tagged correctly. It the tagged article belongs to WP Energy, please add correct assessment and remove autotagged and/or auto parameters from the project banner. If the article does not belong to the Energy WikiProject, please removed the WP:Energy banner from the article's talk page.
  • Assessing unassessed articles. There are 3,401 articles in the Category:Unassessed energy articles which should be assessed.
  • Confirming stub-class assessment. There are 3,824 articles in the Category:Stub-Class energy articles assessed as stub. Quite a number of articles in this category are actually not stubs, so if necessary, please update their assessment. It the article is still stub, please check also if it has a proper stub tags on the article page. Different stub templates related to the WP:Energy are available at Wikipedia:Energy#Stub templates.
  • Confirming other class assessments, particularly B-class assessment. B-class articles should high quality articles. Several B-class assessed articles are actually belongs to C or even Start class.

Hope to see your active participation. Beagel (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Beagel. I've been doing this to all energy articles i come across. Just want to let you know that im on it. Best regards. Rehman(+) 09:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Davis Besse Nuclear Power Plant - Oak Harbor, Ohio

It was announced today that Davis Besse will be shut down "indefinitely". Hairline fractures in over a dozen reactor head nozzles are the cause for this indefinite shutdown, when it was scheduled to only be shut down for refueling. Boric Acid is the cause, the same acid found in the last breach at Davis Besse. Davis Besse to shut down indefinitely - March 15, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.11.19 (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Trenton Channel Power Plant

I recently created the Trenton Channel Power Plant article. I've never created an “energy” article before, and I only created it to supplement the creation of the nearby, geography-related Elizabeth Park (Michigan) article. I don't know very much about power plants, and I couldn't locate any of the technical data for the article — mainly the information needed to fill in the infobox. The Trenton Channel Power Plant article mostly just discusses its location and positive contributions to the environment, because I couldn't locate the technical details. If someone wants to provide me with some assistance (or add some more details to the article), I would appreciate it. — ♣№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė♫♪ 06:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC) —

Hello. Just looked into it. The page seems good enough to me, except for some missing info such as installed capacity, etc.. I will see if i can do anything. Regards. Rehman(+) 06:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy/Archive 2/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy/Archive 2/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 01:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Petrolsoft Corporation

This startup company is responsible for writing the software that created the current petroleum distribution network. Unfortunately it may be deleted in Afd and I was wondering if an expert could look at it. thanks! - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing energy topics

Anybody willing to have a look at this - Skysmith (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Skysmith. Just looked at it. On the first peek i did notice that some of the mentioned articles do already exist. Could I edit the page so that I can add the links next to it (you may change later)? Rehman(+) 12:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes or create redirects as you see appropriate - Skysmith (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Alright, will do that. Regards. Rehman(+) 02:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Redirected about 10 entries. Looks like User:Beagel had done some too. Rehman(+) 02:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you - Skysmith (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. Rehman(+) 09:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Where to find energy capacity statistics?

Hello. I'm trying to expand this section Renewable energy in the United States#Statistics with state PV capacity statistics like at Renewable energy in the European Union#Statistics, but I can't find any state-level capacity statistics for more than one year. EERE has a great excel sheet with wind power capacity statistics at (http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/docs/installed_wind_capacity_by_state.xls). Does anyone know of something similar to this for solar photovoltaic capacity? TimeClock871 (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course we can't count capacity exactly since individuals with homes equipped with solar PV don't report to a central authority that can count the capacity like a utility would. So instead we count the capacity shipped each year, and along those lines, the EIA has shipments by state on their site. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 11:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
That does make sense. I guess I thought that utilities would keep track of individual home PV systems on their network and report it to a state/federal agency. Never came across that EIA information before, thanks. TimeClock871 (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Powerex and BC import/export conditions/controversy

Please see Talk:BC_Hydro#Powerex_and_import.2Fexport_policy but please note in general I find a lot of articles without "the other side of the story" and also heavily-cited by "COI references"; in BC Hydro's and Powerex's case by news releases from either the companies/organizations or from the government (they're government owned so government sources are COI in reference to them). So much information is present "neutralized" that it's no longer NPOV, it's actually POV because it omits mention of controversies and conflicting/critical reports; this isn't limited only to teh BC Hydro and Powerex articles, of course, and not just to BC....Skookum1 (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed dams in Iran

I have seen several new articles spring up regarding proposed dams in Iran [1]. The justification given was "The mere feasibility study of dam raises issues, ecological, social etc. That is why even dams which were once proposed and then cancelled, have their pages on wikipedia." I was wondering if this was indeed the case. Do dams fall under different notability requirements due to there nature than other articles on WP? Padillah (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon

There is a discussion about merging Deepwater Horizon and 2010 Explosion on Deepwater Horizon drilling rig articles. Beagel (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Spanish-language news sources

Today I discovered these two Spanish-language sources for news about the environment.

(This Spanish-language newspaper based in Mexico City specializes in environmental news.)

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I just found another one.

-- Wavelength (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 18 articles to be referenced, a 5.3% reduction from last week. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you need to request approval before citing statistics?

Hello. I recently added a section to Wind power in the United States showing the % electricity generated from wind power in the U.S. (and in the 50 states). I got the figures from the annual market reports produced by the American Wind Energy Association and I made sure to cite them. A few days later another editor removed [2] the section, saying that "source (AWEA) says it requires approval before being used as it had been here." What did I do wrong? Did I use too much of their information for a cite or did I not cite properly? I'm kind of a new editor so I don't really understand all the rules and this situation confuses me. I'd appreciate any help. TimeClock871 (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem with that table was either. So I went ahead and put it back up, and added a section about it on the talk page(where this discussion probably is more suited for). The table is clearly not just copy/pasted from AWEA's report. It's taken from two of their reports and putten together, and should therefore constitute original work.TheFreeloader (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

New article about or links to the International Centre for Hydrogen Energy Technologies?

Hello :) I am the Information Officer of the International Centre for Hydrogen Energy Technologies (UNIDO-ICHET). UNIDO-ICHET is a project of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) founded in Istanbul in 2004 and supported by the Turkish Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (MENR). It is member of the Executive Committe of the International Energy Agency - Hydrogen Implementation Agreement (IEA-HIA) . Its role is to to support, demonstrate and promote viable hydrogen energy technologies with the aims of enhancing future economic development, particularly in emerging countries, and of preventing the widening of the energy and technology gap while helping skipping over the fossil fuel phase. This Centre is six years old and its projects and activities have received notable attention. As you can see from our webpages, we are affiliated with many of the authoritative organizations operating in the field of hydrogen energy technologies. In my humble opinion, it now seems appropriate to me that ICHET passes the "Wikipedia visibility threshold". This is why I included a link at the bottom of the hydrogen economy page, and this is why - after its understandable deletion by Fæ for possible Conflict of Interest - I am now here in front of you.

External references to ICHET: http://www.unido.org/index.php?id=1000419 http://72.26.206.151/gef/node/2393 (yeah well, the Global Environment Facilities do not seem to have an URL...)

Documents of the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy: Paris Workshop Report Sahara Wind Project Presentation

Do you think a stub could be created? Should links or references to ICHET website be included in existing articles on hydrogen energy / hydrogen economy?

May I have any feedback on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Dziedzic (talk • contribs) 13:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Gregory Dziedzic (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Gregory. I think that the UNIDO-ICHET is notable enough to meet the notability criteria, so I encourage you to start a stub. As you will have a conflict of interest about this topic, please be aware of WP:COI which I advice to read and follow. You should also notify your involvement with the topic at the article's talk page. As for adding external links, please see WP:EL for more guidelines. In general, external links could be added if they provide additional or related information about the topic; however, promotional external links are discouraged. Beagel (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Baegel. I created a stub on UNIDO-ICHET. Is it ok as such? Does it need to be reviewed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Dziedzic (talk • contribs) 11:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Cost statistics on various generation types

I'm noticing a distinct lack of cost figures for power plants: construction, maintenance, and annual fuel cost would be good.

If anyone can tell me where best to look, I can run around updating the various "List of X Plants" tables with the appropriate figures. Cost is an important factor in judging power generation methods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fordi (talk • contribs) 16:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Stella power stations

I am not the author of Stella power stations but I think that it's good enough to be a Featured Article. Before it's (prematurely?) made a candidate, what do you people think? (I'll crosspost this to WP North East England. Please comment at Talk:Stella power stations.) Morenoodles (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Power Factor Correction

This is a very important issue in general. I would flag the sentence in the presentation about substations: "The collector substation also provides power factor correction" for wind turbine installations.

I was told verbally in at an installation in upstate New York that the Vestas 660 kW turbine itself improves the power factor for the nearby grid. I was told that the electric company had created considerable trouble about connecting the turbine to the grid as a result of this myth and other imagined issues, so that the owner had decided simply to install gas-fired microturbines, and disconnect from the grid. I have not had time myself to verify whether there is or is not need for power factor correction, but I believe what I have been told.

So you see, this is a big issue because real people must make big ticket decisions based on it.

If what I was told is correct, then the authors of the article buy into the myth. The correct reality needs to be identified across various wind turbines, and reflected in the article on substantions and elsewhere. In the meantime, I will try to make a minor change in that wording that makes the statement more ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlfoss (talk • contribs) 04:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Petroleum Products in need of expansion, editing

I was searching today for a complete list of petroleum products in order to understand how deeply imbedded is our need for petroleum currently. One source seemed impartial, www.ranken-energy.com/Products, but that source only lists 144 items. It may be possible to contact them for the rest. Clearly a couple of scientists have contacted Wikipedia about your current posting on this subject, but their input is probably too detailed for the average person or for a student. What is needed here, it seems to me, is a more sociological view of the interaction and economic impact on society that petroleum products now represent, so we can consider ways to remedy our apparent utter dependency on oil. What is needed here appears to be some actual research into this subject, including interviews with representatives of industries that utilize petroleum products directly for the manufacture of items not apparently related to petroleum. For that reason, I do not agree that this topic ought to be merged with other sections on the petroleum industry or petrochemical production. The problem in need of research is societal dependence on oil, and what, if anything, might be done to change our dependence. 70.17.219.221 (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Source: www.ranken-energy.com/Products, Google search on "petroleum products" with several listings, mostly from the oil industry, one from the IEAO

Merge of SCIB into Lithium-titanate battery discussion

A merge of SCIB into Lithium-titanate battery has been proposed. Both articles are within this project's scope. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --Muhandes (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Because the SCIB article was just advertising, and SCIB is just one brand of Lithium-titanate battery, and SCIB is a trademark of Toshiba, I put a redirect on SCIB so that it now points to the generic Lithium-titanate battery article.--Lester 00:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I rewrote the "uses" section of Lithium-titanate battery in the way which I originally planned with the merge proposal. I think it is written more fairly now. --Muhandes (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Oil drum/barrel

Are there any editors here who know about oil? In light of the Gulf spill, I am trying to get a decent photo of an oil barrel with a frame of reference to show the size.

Also, the section is confusing and could use a bit of clarification. Millions of people are reading every day about barrels of oil leaking into the gulf. Nobody really knows if it is a 42 or 55 gallon barrel, and how big it is compared to a person. Thanks for any help you can give. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that people even use barrel sized containers. I think it is just a unit of measurement.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I think this covers it Barrel_(volume)#Oil_barrel "The 42-US-gallon oil barrel is a unit of measure, and is no longer used to transport crude oil — most petroleum is moved in pipelines or oil tankers." ErnestfaxTalk 02:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion

There is a number of energy-related categories nominated for deletion, merger, or renaming on 5 July, 6 July, 7 July, 8 July, 9 July, 10 July, 11 July, 12 July, and 13 July. Your input is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Coal power in Denmark - not notable?

I've tagged Coal power in Denmark with the notability tag. The premise on which the article was based, that coal provides 82% of Denmark's energy, is incorrect: according to the official Danish Energy Statistics, it's 21.6%. I note that the creator of the article amended Beagel's assessment of the article as low priority, and changed this to high priority.

ErnestfaxTalk 01:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of any comments here, or on the Coal power in Denmark talk page in a week, I've merged the content into Nordic_energy_market#Coal_power_in_Denmark and made Coal power in Denmark into a redirect to that section on that page. ErnestfaxTalk 12:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox UK power station

Template:Infobox UK power station has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox power station. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Beagel (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Milkweed Latex Gasoline

Found this page Milkweed Latex Gasoline while on 'new page patrol'. Very poorly written, with little clear info and a sketchy reference. Before I spend any more time trying to improve it, could I get some input on how to proceed? There is a good page on milkweed Asclepias that only says that no commericial use for milkweed as a fuel as of yet. Don't want to delete something that might actually need a page, and don't have the knowledge to make the decision. I can work on it, if people think it's worth it. Please let me know. thnx. Nihola (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete Given that the creator of the page hasn't given any reason at all why Milkweed Latex Gasoline is notable, nor any evidence that it actually exists, why should the page exist at all? ErnestfaxTalk 07:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

For nominating pages for deletion, please use WP:AfD procedure. Beagel (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Nominated for Afd. The discussion page is here Beagel (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

List of power stations in India

There is a proposal to merge List of Power Plants In India into List of power stations in India. Beagel (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Renewable energy portal

The new Portal:Renewable energy is progressing quite well, so feel free to drop in and have a look around... Johnfos (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Green diesel

There is a discussion to merge Green diesel article with Vegetable oil refining and/or Biomass to liquid articles. Beagel (talk) 09:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Narva Power Plants

There is a discussion about splitting the Narva Power Plants article. Your comments are appreciated. Beagel (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox wind farm

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wind power: worldwide installed capacity 1996-2008

Hi. I know I have already brought this up sometime back, but I would like to give it one more try. Currently, we have a lot of wind farm articles, of which some currently uses Infobox Power Station. I don't see why we cant create a hot wind farm infobox with all the special fields for a wind farm; currently, numerous ridiculous infoboxes exist across Wikipedia for all other tiny topics. Would you agree if I create one? Please share your views on this. Rehman(+) 06:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: I will try and create a sample infobox (without adding to articles), and if consensus is reached to keep, we keep. If not, we can speedy delete it. Btw, this would be my first infobox, so excuse my bugs. ;) Rehman(+) 07:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Support. I think this is a good idea, as wind power is a fast-growing industry and we will be getting more and more wind farm articles. Johnfos (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support (oh, now I'm undecided: if it's as simple as just adding a couple of fields to Infobox Power station, maybe that's a better solution) ErnestfaxTalk 07:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
And I'd like to take it further: we've got a proto-template in place for offshore wind farms now, which is used for lists, and comes transclusions-ready. What I'm thinking is this: if the parameters for the infobox share their names and functions with the parameters for a table listing of wind farms, we can do a shortcut to allow compilation pages to draw directly on the information in the infoboxes on individual pages.
Here's an example to illustate what I mean:
In a wind farm page, (let's call it MyWindFarm as an example), the structure it like this:
{{infobox windfarm
<onlyinclude>
  |name=My Wind Farm
  |capacityMW=30
  |capacityFactor=33%
  |turbineCount=10
  |squareKm=3
  |country=Erehwon
  |etc...
<onlyinclude>
}}
Then, on a page for all wind farms in Erehwon, (let's call it ErehwonWindFarms), include that last page nested within a different template:
{{Wind farm table|
<onlyinclude>
{{Wind farm table/row
{{Main:MyWindFarm}}
}}
{{Wind farm table/row
{{Main:SomeOtherWindFarm}}
}}
<onlyinclude>
}}
We can extend this further, by transcluding that page into another one - maybe a list of all wind farms on the continent:
{{Wind farm table|
{{Main:ErehwonWindFarms}}
{{Main:LlareggubWindFarms}}
}}
}}
Those templates - Wind farm table and Wind farm table/row, mostly have numbered, rather than named parameters, but I can fix that easily enough. Or is that all too ambitious? Does it conform to wikipedia guidelines on transclusions and templates?
ErnestfaxTalk 08:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Although I see the specifics of wind farms, it seems better that all power stations use the same template with same layout and same basic fields. We may add the wind farm specific fields to the power station infobox and to increase user-friendliness by creating separate skeleton templates for different type of power plants (something like in case of template:Infobox ship. Beagel (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I admit to not looking at Infobox Power Station in detail. Question to all (including me) - what is missing in that to make a better Wind Farm infobox, either on its own or as a general Infobox Power Station ? Cost, CapFac, ..? TGCP (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC) ..on/off-shore, grid connection voltage.. TGCP (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Turbine model, maybe rated wind speeds? We could be as detailed as the lovely {{Infobox dam}}. ;) Rehman(+) 22:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Semi-completed

(Moved to Template talk:Infobox wind farm)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:Dams project tags

Hello, a bunch of editors and myself have been working in the new WikiProject Dams and have our assessment tool working now. We had began tagging articles and User:Rehman, a member of your project and ours as well, suggested we try to link Dam tags on hydroelectric dams with this project to remove talk page clutter. On our assessment template, we added a hydroelectric field and link to your project. However, I am beginning to think this may be redundant and unneeded if the article has or should have both tags. If there are too many tags, we can collapse them as suggested as I have done to many that are applicable already. Both of our projects need to assess relevant articles. I also have no problem tagging a hydroelectric dam with your tag as well. I wanted to query WP:Energy on this so we don't but heads in the future and we can get moving. If you have any other suggestions, please. Thanks. --NortyNort (Holla) 07:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't see any problem having both project banners inserted. As you said, if there are too many tags they could be collapsed. As your proposal of tagging relevant articles also with WP:Energy tag, this is highly appreciated. Beagel (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, well if there are no issues, I will exclude a link to this project in the template here soon. No problem on the tagging help.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi NortyNort. Thanks, got your message. To summarize, my proposal (which is already somewhat done) is to have a |hydroelectric=yes parameter at {{WikiProject Dams}}, as an alternative to tagging {{WikiProject Energy}}, not a replacement. Although not that of a big difference, it would help reduce talkpage clutter in some cases. Rehman(+) 11:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The tags can be collapsed if they get too cluttered. Also, having WP:Energy tags on hydroelectric dam articles is important for your assessment and overview of energy related articles. Only the WP:Energy tag could place the necessary cats for that to happen. I could leave a note in the template documentation recommending that editors apply your tag if they are hydroelectric.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not that sure how to do it, but if I am not mistaken, there is a way to add assessment details with parameters such as hydroelectric-importance=, including the categorizing into WP:Energy. But again, this is still an optional alternative, and if these are too much of an unnecessary hassle, I am perfectly ok with reverting it to the earlier state (Dams and Energy being fully separate tags). Kind regards. Rehman(+) 03:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Another way to put the question is, are there hydroelectric dams that should not be tagged as part of the WP:ENERGY project? Pfly (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Then we could simply leave the |hydroelectric= field blank. Rehman(+) 03:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Or it should be moved all-together is categories can't be place. The best I can think doing is if the hydroelectric field is marked yes, then it may be able to add an "Unassessed Energy article category" and a member from this project can go back an assess it. However, they would have to clear the field after they assess it with the energy tag. I can't think of a way to create both tags or categories without actually putting both tags on there. When the templates places both cats, it responds to that project. In the end, I think it would create more work and one has to consider how important some of the yet to be tagged dam articles are to the energy project as. I and I am sure other editors have no problem placing the energy tag with class and presumed importance on articles as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 Not done. Removed the entire parameter; both templates are now fully separate. Makes more sense now I guess. ;) Rehman(+) 09:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Solar articles by User:Dofir23

Hi Beagel and Johnfos, thank you for the message on my talkpage. My network is currently laughing at me, so once he stops, I will take a closer look. For now, I think these pages should not be deleted; it has good chances of being expanded (and fixed) further. Although, it would be better if these titles could be moved to the English name. It would also (maybe), be a better idea to only delete non-notable topics on smaller plants; plants less than 10MW? For reference, I have listed the current existing articles by Dofir23:

I will take a closer look and help improve these pages as soon as I can. Johnfos, three heads are better than two. ;) Rehman(+) 08:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

For background information, this is the source that we have mainly used for large PV plants in the past: World's largest photovoltaic power plants and most of the names of the new stubs seem to match up with the List of photovoltaic power stations article, which is good. Hope this helps. Johnfos (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Finally fixed my network! For now I will start on "structurally" cleaning up the article; mos, interlinking, title language, etc. Do let me know if I do anything wrong. Will eventually work on expansion later. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 09:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Frank Moolin, Jr.

I want to create an article on him. He headed the Construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. I am scratching around for an image. Any suggestions? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

http://enr.construction.com/people/AOE-gallery/1970/1970-7.asp Google Images only found this, which is probably copyrighted. Focus on the data instead, that's what matters. Image may pop up eventually. TGCP (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll have to wait. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

New infobox power station

Yes, we are gearing up to change the entire template. Your comments are highly appreciated. Please see here for the discussion. Rehman(+) 15:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussions on the deployment of the new template has sort of stalled. Your input is very much appreciated. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 12:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Dobrogea Wind Farm

There is a merger discussion of Dobrogea Wind Farm and Fântânele Wind Farm articles. Beagel (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Coal tipple

A coal tipple is a structure used to load coal into railroad hopper cars, or sometimes barges or trucks, but there is no article on it. I did not find much from a Google search, but I hope some other editor will follow up on this. The tipple article is a disambiguation page. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BOLD feel free to start the article, categorize and put the WP:Energy and Portal:Energy stickers on, and let's see what happens. TGCP (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

How does one go about categorizing and putting those stickers on a given article? I started up an article, and then later a notice appeared on the article talk page ("This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy..."). Is that the sticker in question? Sorry to be such a noob. Shilpanicodemus (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)shilpanicodemus

Yes, those are the ones - use them in your WP:sandbox first to see them, and then delete them again so they don't appear on the portal. Then use them in the appropriate article. TGCP (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Energy articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Energy articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this Wikipedia 0.8 offline release is a great idea, but it would seem that most of our recognised content is not being included. For example, apparently only 12 of our 45 GAs are to be included, see [3]. Quite disappointing really. Johnfos (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Depends on what the target is - few of the Energy GA have high notability on world scale. If total 0.8 volume is compressed to 600MB or 2GB, extreme selection has to be made. It will also be a compromise between stability and future importance; Gulf Oil is more stable and less important than Sustainable biofuel . Several non-GA articles should be improved instead, but that will be for 0.9 next year. TGCP (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I propose that we push for an additional 12 energy GAs to be included in the 0.8 release, all of which have a selection score above 740:

Possible COI on Southern Company

There is a guy (or gal) who registered in 2007 and never edited until yesterday. So far, (s)he's made 5 edits all stressing the nice things about Southern Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) while removing the negative (largest GHG emitter in the electricity industry; lots of green to GWB...). I've made a move with a {{neutrality}} banner, a comment in the article's talk page, and {{welcome-COI}} on his talk page, but it might be helpful if a few editors make the article part of their watchlists. Ciao. Bouchecl (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Nuke templates

There is something wrong with Template:China nuke plant map and Template:Russia nuke plant map. Does anybody knew how to fix them? Beagel (talk) 08:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I fixed them. Some countries have equirectangular location maps only (and those don't have "(equirectangular)" after them), but for those that have a sine and cosine based map as well, the equirectangular map is listed with "(equirectangular)" after. Since this template is based on an equirectangular map, that is the one needed.).
Funny Side Note: When I first saw this heading, I thought you wanted to delete certain templates.--Jorfer (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Beagel (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Power Technology

I didn't see a listing on links on the project page, but here is a good, detailed and reliable resource for all types of power plants projects. They cover new and upcoming projects as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the year of establishment for an oil field?

I'm adding categories like Category:1989 establishments in Norway to various articles, and I wonder whether the year of discovery or the year of production start is the year to go by in that connection. __meco (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's the year of production. For instance, for a wind project, we don't mark year of establishment as the year we discovered the 'new' wind resource; we mark the year of first power production. But that's what I think, it may change from industry to industry. ;) Kind regards. Rehman(+) 00:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Rehman, the year the oilfield was successfully exploited and production began. Establishment could technically be 10 million years BC or so but I don't think there are categories for that.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirects for deletion

A few template redirects are nominated for deletion. Your input is appreciated. Rehman(+) 14:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"Electricity pylon" versus "Transmission tower"

I would like to open a debate on the naming of this article, as it seems this was never done.
Currently, it is called "Electricity pylon", and people say that this is the name "in common use". However, I have not really heard of it called a "pylon" anywhere outside of the United Kingdom, and the article itself states that many different countries use different names for it, all colloquial, while the official term for it is "Transmission tower", even in Britain. However, the United States, as far as I know, calls the structure a transmission tower. I have not heard it "in common use" here, whatsoever.
Personally, I don't see why the colloquial name in common use in one country (Britain) is the be-all-end-all for the naming of this article, here, and many people state they've gone through the redirect page to get there. So. Thoughts? Input? Because I'm seriously tempted to rename the article. —Onore Baka Sama(speak | stalk) 22:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: See the talk page for my Google findings and suggestions. —Onore Baka Sama(speak | stalk) 22:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Zero carbon firelogs?

In the FIRELOGS page it states that oil palm fibre firelogs burn with zero carbon and sulphur emissions, unlke sawdust firelogs. I would have thought that the net carbon and sulphur from both would be identical. Paraffin impregnated firelogs would have higher emissions but it doesn't say this. 89.184.46.49 (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

North Sea Offshore Grid / Europagrid

There is a discussion about proposed merger of North Sea Offshore Grid and Europagrid articles. Beagel (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Template merger

Hey, what do you think of merging {{Infobox oil field}} and {{Infobox oil refinery}}? Having two subsections instead of two separate infoboxes? Rehman 16:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. They apply for very different things. Beagel (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm ok. Was just asking :) Rehman 02:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

800.000 miles 1,2 million kilometre long alaska pipeline?

Is the alaska pipeline really 800 000 miles long? That doesnt seem right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.77.65 (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Trans-Alaska Pipeline is 800 mi (1,300 km) long. IMHO those decimals are unnecessary for such a long pipeline... Rehman 02:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Renewable energy in Spain: 20% of renewable electricity by 2020?

In the article Renewable_energy_in_Spain the article begins telling that "Spain has the target of generating 20% of its electricity needs from renewable energy sources by 2020. As of 2009 Spain's renewable energy level was 12.5 percent.[3]"

That is wrong. The 20% target is not just for electricity, but for primary energy as a whole. This is a target common to all EU countries ref1 ref2. Rober2D2 (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have copied your comment to Talk:Renewable energy in Spain. Rehman 03:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Water power engine

There is a discussion on a possible redirection of the above title. Your comments are appreciated. Rehman 13:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Dams

Seeing as there is now a WikiProject Dams, should all dam articles still be tagged as WP:Energy? It seems to defeat the point as almost every dam article has both. I think just having it tagged with WP:Dams is sufficient, unless it is a major dam of significant important to discussions on energy. Ng.j (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Just saw here the decision to tag dam articles with WP:Energy if they provide hyroelectric generation. Makes sense, leaving this here for others to see. Ng.j (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of an infobox

I think some editors are getting carried away with infoboxes, sometimes including poorly sourced and very detailed information, and even using infoboxes to describe proposed projects which have not yet been built (and for which we have little solid information). Please keep in mind Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes), which says:

...keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content.

-- Johnfos (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I put whatever I can in a dam infobox fields, whatever I can confirm with the best source. Things could get much more complicated but it serves to a good variety of readers. Good point on the proposed projects. The best it to just leave it blank. IMHO, I don't think most proposed projects should have an article. I think it falls in-line with WP:NALBUM.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Students need feedback on Energy Policy articles

Hi, One of the courses in the Public Policy Initiative is writing energy policy articles for their assignment. They are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Courses/Political Economy of Technology and Science fall 2010, if you could give feedback on the revisions in Article space, please do so. Thank you, Sadads (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oil Rocks

Hello everybody, can anybody help me to develop Neft Daşları article? I would really appreciate it.--NovaSkola (talk) 13:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Using coordinates for powerlines and cables

There is a discussion how to use coordinates for powerlines and cables. Your input is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Oil companies

Template:Oil companies has been nominated for merging with Template:Petroleum industry. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Electricity generation

Volcanic ash, when it's particles collide, produces lightning. We can collect this ash, put it in a small airtight chamber fitted with lightning rods, and then circulate the air so that the ash particles collided. The electricity thus produced can be picked up by the lightning rods and conducted away to a rechargeable storage unit as electricity. The wires from the lightning rod can be routed through a device which converts the raw electricity into the voltage et al specifications that is required. AnnA2011 (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Energy connot be creted, only converted. So in this case, the movement of the ash particles requires energy (wind, from the sun) to rub and create a charge. (Solar - Stored electrical). When lightening occurs, the stored energy in converted into Light, heat, sound and kenetick ebergy - but it all came from the sun.

In your airtight container, where would the energy come from to move the particles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.83.1.241 (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Gas production in Iran

Hi, can somebody please explain the huge difference between Bloomberg and PressTV numbers? Did somebody mix cubic feet with cubic meters? If so who is correct and who isn't? Did i miss something? Thanks much. 68.197.144.38 (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Beats me, look for a third source. I think the Bloomberg source is the better of the two though.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I found these additional sources: EIA, Forbes, PFC Energy. I think both were correct but PressTV forgot to say that it is the DAILY production. 68.197.144.38 (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

template:Renewable energy in Australia

{{Renewable energy in Australia}} has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Spark

Hey everyone, there's a small debate going on over the naming of the article Spark (fire) at its talk page. Any helpful and accurate input is much appreciated. Thanks so much!--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Cost of Energy

There is no discussion, as there should be, of the cost of energy to residents of the United States. 97.97.17.161 (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC) Joe Shea

Have you checked out Cost_of_electricity_by_source and Gasoline_and_diesel_usage_and_pricing? ErnestfaxTalk 21:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hydro and Edison

The word defintions for wikt:Hydro and wikt:Edison in the sense of electric utilities, is under discussion, see wikt:Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#Hydro

65.95.15.144 (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

  • {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Help requested with Japanese reactor articles following the Sendai earthquake

Information out of Japan about the reactors at the Fukushima daiichi and Fukushima daini sites is garbled and contradictory. One of the articles has already had to be semi-protected due to vandalism. The two regular editors that have been watching these articles recently (L.tak and myself) are both going offline for now.

Can someone else keep an eye on them and update them as additional news comes in? I've posted links to some reliable sources at Talk:Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant.

Thanks! --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Merging IEC standards

There is a proposal to merge the IEC 61400 wind turbine standards article with the List of IEC standards, with implications for the content beyond list level. You are invited to discuss. TGCP (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

ABWRs are slightly more efficient than PWRs

The article on ABWRs states "slightly less efficient". This is in reference to PWRs. I have worked as a Nuclear Engineer for 20 years in BWRs and 20 years PWRs. Due to the PWR two system (primary and secondary) and steam generator design, the PWRs normally run at a thermal efficieny of 34% and BWRs have a thermal efficiency of 35%. This makes a BWR or ABWR slightly MORE efficient than a PWR, but I have not worked at an ABWR.

173.169.159.108 (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Keith F. Bullen PE (Nuclear & Mechanical) BSNE U of WISC. 1977

Chernobyl/Fukushima "demographics" for nuclear reactors

An unregistered editor has been entering population data from the surrouding area, implying an "at risk" group for nuclear reactors. This is, of course, pure WP:SOAPBOX and WP:OR. Okay to enter "population served" but it is nonsense to suggest that there is an "at risk" population. Miami has to evacuate when a hurricane threatens. That is more real and a heck of a lot more often, but not emphasized. Nor should it be here. Student7 (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Citing a fact -- the population near the nuclear power plant, a plant which by the way has an evacuation zone -- is not SOAPBOX. Nor is this OR; the reference is cited. If you have a strong opinion on nuclear power, as evidenced by your edits, and a fact makes you uncomfortable, that doesn't turn the fact into an expression of a point of view. Also, "an unregistered editor"? Is that code for "person who posted a fact I'd prefer not be shared"?Extremely hot (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I honestly don't think that this info is needed for every US nuclear power plant, but it is relevant for Indian Point Energy Center and several other plants near built up areas. Where the info is added it should ideally be integrated with existing text or, if this is not possible, it should appear in a small section at the end of the page. Johnfos (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
See WP:V. This policy says, in part, "...The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". In other words, coupling fact 1 with fact 2 gratuitously is clearly non- WP:TOPIC. If it is done for purposes of WP:SOAPBOXing, that is a good deal worse.
Cars have killed (what?) 1 million people in the US alone since 1945? But we don't publish statistics on people who live within 20 driving miles of Car X! Cars (and overeating) are a good deal worse for our personal health than nuclear reactors. I'll grant you that the latter certainly deliver a certain excitement lacking in (very common) car crashes. I like watching thriller movies, not documentaries about germs, which tend to be a lot more dangerous than spies/mafia/aliens/other rare phenomena. Student7 (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you are getting carried away with yourself. I have given my opinion, for what it is worth. And encourage others to join this discussion and give theirs. Johnfos (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Editor Student7 is making a political argument (nuclear power is safe; other technologies have caused more deaths, etc.). To support his political argument, he cites the policy SOAPBOX. Yet his comments reveal that he has a political motivation for wanting to reveal this information. Let us assume good faith, yes, but yelling SOAPBOX to make a political argument is less than convincing. His framing for this discussion, claiming that the data is being used to suggest a population at risk, or to draw analogies to Chernobyl or Fukushima, is tendentious. Nothing of the sort is stated by the data. Some people may think that the population near a particular nuclear power plant is a large number, at risk, and others may think that the population is a small number not at risk; none of that sort of argument would belong in Wikipedia. But the fact of the population near a nuclear power plant, certainly.Extremely hot (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Editor Johnfos makes an interesting point, but not one supported by the data. Johnfos writes, "it is relevant for Indian Point Energy Center and several other plants near built up areas." If one looks at the source cited, one realizes that most nuclear power plants in the U.S. are near built-up areas. Quoting from the source: "Any idea that most reactors are in unpopulated areas is not borne out by the data, not when a 50-mile circle is drawn. The median, or middle, nuclear plant has 1.4 million residents within 50 miles. Out of 65 plants, 42 exceed a million people within that 50-mile zone."Extremely hot (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with Student7, this isn't synthesis. The fact that MSNBC has chosen to report on these statistics in specific connection to nuclear power, means that the connection is not synthesis, and that the data must be notable in that context. I do not see how these contributions are in any way soapboxing. There are no rules against adding content which supports one's point of view (which I am not even sure Extremely hot is doing here), if it is done in manner which else conforms with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.TheFreeloader (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
If you are inserting this material into a business article to make a political point, it is clearly WP:SOAPBOX. Nothing more than soapbox. What else could it be? How is population WP:TOPIC? Not done for the formerly detested Rubber Plant; nor General Motors, nor Apple? Right? What else is it?
Why not "surrounding temperature"? That is "true" too. Just not relevant unless there is a "climate" soapbox agenda. Student7 (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
You ask what the relevance would be. As stated previously, nuclear power points have evacuation zones. How many people live near the plant is relevant. Is it a lot or a little? The new census data answer that question. Does a rubber plant have an evacuation zone? Or Apple? And what in the world does "detested" have to do with anything? Stating the population, citing a news article which calculated the population using GIS analysis from the new census data, is not an attack on nuclear power, as you seem to be perceiving it. It's not a defense of nuclear power. It's not trying to make a political point. It gives a relevant fact.Extremely hot (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Extremely hot (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I can not see how it can be off topic and irrelevant when MSNBC chooses to report on these statistics in a specific article on nuclear power plants. Is MSNBC not a reliable source? How can we decide that what they say is irrelevant without doing original research? I also think it's clear that this kind of data is, if not important to the safety of a nuclear power plant, then at least important to the public perception about the safety of a nuclear power plant, and probably therefore also important to the construction or continued operation of it. Case in point being Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Started new subsection below. Student7 (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Homeland security" articles

You may have a point. All areas should probably have an "homeland security" article that would be a separate fork. It would cover all threats, including ones like hurricanes and tornadoes, which have (in Florida) a 1 in 10/20 chance of happening (with odds, BTW), along with nuclear events, with their predicted failure rate (from an official WP:RELY source). Terrorist attack. Chemical spills, etc. This might be a one-liner in some place articles (not every small town, for Pete's sake! but certainly metro articles and cities and maybe some heavily populated counties). Probably more of a "see also" from chemical, natural gas, and nuclear plants. Student7 (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This is another political attempt to move any reference to population, and by extension to evacuation or hazards, out of the nuclear power articles.Extremely hot (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
So you would oppose all WP:NPOV attempt to solve this problem and totally against a series of articles on Homeland Security?
Since you are appear to be monitoring my edits, I am apparently making you nervous. I think you will find that nearly all of my edits are npov, including one being proposed. Does that makes you nervous?
Rather flattering actually. I don't think I have ever had anyone interested in tracking my edits before. Most of my edits are rather boring. Vandal reversing. Misspellings sometimes. Trying to discuss stuff with other editors. Switching paragraph a with paragraph b. That sort of thing. Just dull yeoman work. I don't envy you watching me! I hope you are being well-paid for this! You deserve it! :)
And oh, BTW, don't bother switching IP/aliases for your edits, I'm not tracking you. Not enough money to pay me for that! Student7 (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Energy in Queensland

I have recently expanded Energy in Queensland six-fold and was hoping some of this project's members could read and improve the article as it is a little factoid. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Bug, Spelling Error and Link Error

On page Trigeneration, number 9 (under see also) RAKINE CYCLE is MIS-SPELL correct to RANKINE CYCLE can also delete existing link note: "this page does not exist". Because THIS IS THE CORRECT PAGE Rankine cycle. Rich BSME_CT 65.75.32.17 (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks. You could fix such mistakes yourself next time ;) Just click on the "edit" link on the top-right of the page. Kind regards. Rehman 02:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Environmental issues with energy

Your comments are requested at a discussion here about a potential merge of Energy and the environment into Environmental issues with energy. Any constructive contributions would be appreciated. Neelix (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Dc to Ac current

How to calculate ac output maximum current of a 0.5KVA UPS while UPS has 12VDC/7.2AH battery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.204.198 (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Burning clean vs. being "climate safe"

Most people know that natural gas is almost pure methane. Many know that methane is about 15 times more hazardous to to the environment than carbon dioxide. The methane ices so abundant in deep water all over the world and, locked up in frozen tundra as well, scare the heck out of many scientists who fear global warming could run away with itself.

Why is finding methane in shale better than finding methane under the sea? Why would methane be be more environmentally friendly to run power plants on than coal or oil? Or would it? A clean flame does not mean it is not bad for the planet.Chrmngblly (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing methane emissions (yes it is a GW issue) with methane as a fuel source. Methane is the cleanest possible fossil fuel as far as combustion cleanliness and low CO2. As long as methane is not accidentally released to the environment during the cradle-to-grave process, it is more beneficial to burn nat gas then say coal or oil, from a global warming perspective. The significance of the shale gas is that it can be economically produced, with newer drilling techniques, in large quantities in various regions of the world. Assuming such production can be done in an environmentally sound manner, then nat gas has significant potential to contribute to reduced CO2 emissionsTBILLT (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wind hybrid power systems

There is a discussion about merging Wind-hydro hybrid power system, Wind-hydrogen hybrid power system, and Wind-diesel hybrid power system into Wind hybrid power systems. Beagel (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent news about nuclear problems affects dozens of articles

  • A recent news story at [4] mentions the problem with radioactive tritium leaking from most nuclear plants in the United States. At the bottom it has a map, and when you linger over any nuclear site, it shows the accidents in the past that nuclear power plant has had. I'm adding some of that information into various articles concerning those specific nuclear power plants. If anyone wants to help, that's something worth doing. If there are any government websites with specific information to link to, that'd be helpful also. Dream Focus 10:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Oil platform

Hi. This article could have sections copied from here, as "Types" or Introduction. Please, check. I tell you because it has a template is under your scope. Thanks. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

....imports from Malaysia and Brazil blocked by the British.

This comment seems a little odd, as Malaya was a British colony/possession at the time that the Japanese captured it, and Singapore. Most of our natural rubber came from Malayan plantations, with the original source of natural rubber being Brazil.So, we were cut off from Malaya, not us cutting anyone else off.216.197.212.26 (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

hi there

Hello, I don't know if this is the right place to write about it. Actually I don't think so, but I am not practical with the wiki-world, so I just give a try.

I was on the page: “list of renewable energy companies by stock exchange”. I have noted that Italian “Enel Green Power”, listed in the Italian Stock Exchange is missing from the list. Now, considering that the Italian market is quite important especially for the photovoltaic industry (second only to Germany, 18% PV capacity in Europe), I thought I could gave a positive contribution to the discussion just saying that Enel Green Power is missing. I would not be able to edit a proper change.

Apparently the discussion for that page does not exist and I was rather redirected here (why???), which is a very big and general topic.

I don’t know how to do in a situation like this..


ciao

Gizzle85 (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems you clicked on the words 'WikiProject Energy' there. If you go back to the talk page, click "New section" on the top-right tab. From there you can start a new discussion. If you don't see New section, simply hit the "Edit" tab and start one.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Competing analyses should be included

Spikes in energy prices played an important role on reducing the real wages of workers around the world. This inflationary reduction of real wages should be addressed in the article.

Additionally, an argument exists which claims this price increase by OPEC was encouraged by US policymakers [1].

This has led some to claim the inflationary impact may have been accepted by US policymakers, because this inflationary impact on real wages was designed to reduce the real wages of workers in the United States to restore profits after a collapse of the effectiveness of productivity deals crafted under the American Keynesian system. [2].

Time stamp added to this conversation. Beagel (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Energy to Produce Energy

There is much talk about how much energy does it take to produce energy. An example is the energy needed to produce a gallon of ethanol where there in no agreement amongst the "experts". Wikipedia has an interesting article on the costs of producing energy, but I do not see any true energy balance analysis. If there is such an article and table of values, I would appreciate knowing where to find it. It would be particularly interesting to see a table showing energy consumed: at the sources, at each processing steps, and at the consumption points. An example would be the per mile energy needed to drive "identical" cars with different power plants: 4-cycle IC, diesel, electric, hybrid, etc. The electric and hybrid cars would need to include the batteries in the analysis since these are consumables for these applications. RWReynolds (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I'd really love to see a project that relates the energy cost of many activities -- including producing energy. For example, purifying a gallon of water and then processing it minimally before discharge from sewer system back to watershed (is it really better to wash and reuse some things? Or throw them away?).
But keeping up-to-date tabs on the energy cost to produce energy in a variety of fields (coal, solar PV, hydro, nuclear, natural gas, etc.) would be a great page to get going. I picture a matrix of the following: (69.249.116.193 (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC))
  • Energy source (coal, natural gas, PV, wind, etc)
  • Standard extraction kWh inputs per kWh output (standard unit could be BTU's or whatever) (full life-cycle, including all measures needed to reduce externalities like pollution, down to some standard level at which the different technologies may be compared with each other).
  • Projected extraction kWh inputs per kWh outputs for the years 2015, 2020, 230, 250, based on consensus about trends in consumption levels for each energy source, quality of reserves of the resource, and expected performance of emerging technologies for extraction from each source.(69.249.116.193 (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC))

Renewable energy portal at FPC

Portal:Renewable energy is currently a Featured portal candidate. Any contributions and/or feedback appreciated. Johnfos (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Nuclear sector

Category:Nuclear sector, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Smart grid needs heavy restructuring

Hi, seems that smart grid has seen it's best days, and it would require major restructuring in order it to be a useful source of information for anyone interested in the topic.

Any volunteers? (AFD2020 (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC))

Flag icons in infoboxes

I made a request to use a bot to replace flag icons in power stations infoboxes with country names. Before running a bot for these edits, a clear consensus is needed. You are welcome to make your comments at the relevant template's talk page here. Beagel (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about the wind farms' names

There is a discussion and move request about the names of wind farms in Australia. Your comments are welcome. Beagel (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

is tranformative a real word?

i read the article about List of water fuel inventions and see a section called "Tranformative Claims" but is this a real word or should it be "tranSformative" ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_water_fuel_inventions#Tranformative_Claims

a general wikipedia search shows 4 instances of this word, perhaps they are all wrong.. I'm not a wikipedian though, if you think it should be changed please do so as I likely won't — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.64.156.230 (talk) 07:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

broken links on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Nuclear_Industry_Status_Report

Hello I found that on www.greens-efa.org all links prior to 2009 docs aren't available anymore. So the link to "World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2007" is broken now: http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/206/206749.the_world_nuclear_industry_status_report@en.pdf

But I found two links on the net where it is still availale:

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2007 (Dec):

http://beta.fisica.uniba.it/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=SUcBBoKzXkE%3D&tabid=765&mid=1823

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2007 (Nov):

http://www.laka.org/docu/boeken/pdf/6-01-0-20-108.pdf

In case you're interested there are 3 previous reports available too:

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2004: http://www.laka.org/docu/boeken/pdf/6-01-0-20-107.pdf

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2002: http://www.laka.org/docu/boeken/pdf/6-01-0-20-106.pdf

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2001: http://www.laka.org/docu/boeken/pdf/6-01-0-20-104.pdf

also reference 7 is broken: "Nuclear Energy: Report Shows Decline of Nuclear Industry"

and is not available as free article anymore but only to be found as commercial 'read trials'

I hope it's ok to post this here and maybe s.o. could update the page and don't worry to remove my comment afterwards

thanks for your work ~ Vera — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.139.184.124 (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Article updated. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Keystone XL pipeline can't jump from Montana to Nebraska.

The article on the Keystone XL pipeline has a section that talks about where the pipeline will go. In the article, it is stated that it will start in Alberta, but then the next northern most point mentioned is in Nebraska. On the sidebar, it is mentioned that it will go through Morgan Montana. But it must also at least pass through Wyoming or South Dakota if it ends up in Nebraska. Wrww (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)wrww

Infobox dam

There is a discussion concerning usage of flag icons within template:Infobox dam, similar we had for template:Infobox power station. There was earlier consensus that in case hydroelectric power station has also a dam, it uses template:Infobox dam instead of template:Infobox power station as power generation information is integrated into dam infoboxes. Therefore, the discussion is relevant also for this WikiProject. Your comments are welcome. Beagel (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox for fuel production facilities

At the moment, there is an infobox for refineries (template:Infobox oil refinery) but no infoboxes for other type of fuel processing facilities such as shale oil plants (e.g. Narva Oil Plant), gas-to-liquids plants (e.g. Pearl GTL), coal-to-liquids plants (e.g. Secunda CTL), liquefied natural gas plants (e.g. Yemen LNG) or gas processing plants (e.g. Kårstø). Currently there is no suitable infobox for these facilities. Template:Infobox building is too general and does not allow of usage of the industry-specific information, while template:Infobox industrial park is also not suitable. Therefore I see two options: to create a separate infobox for any above-mentioned type of facility or expand template:Infobox oil refinery to cover also other type of fuel production facilities (usage of specific infobox skeletons as we do in the case of different type of power stations within the template:Infobox power station). I personally prefer the second options to avoid creation of a number of infoboxes used only by few pages. However, I started discussion here to achieve more wider participation. If there will be consensus for expansion of template:Infobox oil refinery, the discussion could be moved to the template's talk page. Beagel (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I approve of the second option, as we expanded the template:Infobox power station to also include newer types. TGCP (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I support the second option, too. But I suggest we merge {{Infobox industrial park}} into it as well, as it seem to fit, and is used in only 1 article. Rehman 02:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Easy fix needed

Please see this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_power&action=historysubmit&diff=452451142&oldid=451846391 I saw the change and fixed the wording, but the lead para leaves me confused: surely electric power is stored in batteries, but is it correct to say it's 'produced' in batteries? Please remove if approp., or reply here and I'll do it. Thanks. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear power/nuclear energy

There is a discussion which is related to this project. You are welcome to take a part of this discussion. Beagel (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of vegetable oils/archive1

Afraid this featured list has appalling sourcing problems. 86.** IP (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of FOSTER NATURAL GAS/OIL REPORT for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article FOSTER NATURAL GAS/OIL REPORT is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FOSTER NATURAL GAS/OIL REPORT until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Foster Natural Gas Report for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Foster Natural Gas Report is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FOSTER NATURAL GAS/OIL REPORT until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wind turbine at St John Bosco Primary School

The article Wind turbine at St John Bosco Primary School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DexDor (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Where are new battery chemistries discussed in Wikipedia?

I'm attempting to figure out if Wikipedia has an article that describes the sodium-ion or ??? battery chemistry described in this new battery technology: In Search of the Ideal Grid Battery, published in MIT Technology Review on 22 Nov 2011. I could not locate any article that might discuss this, nor new battery chemistries in general, in a search of this category: Category:Battery (electricity). Would appreciate any help on finding the appropriate place where new, not yet being manufactured, laboratory battery chemistries would fit best. Thanks. N2e (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

List of vegetable fats

Does anyone know how to go about compiling a list of vegetable fats? In this discussion, two other editors and I have determined that the vegetable fats currently listed on List of vegetable oils should probably be split off into their own list at List of vegetable fats, but we're unsure how many other vegetable fats there are or how we might determine what they are. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Photo of Wood

Can we add a border or caption to the photo at the top? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.43.73.98 (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Odessa–Brody pipeline

I wonder why nobody cares about Europe's potentially #1 pipeline, particularly about the fact that its direction (and geopolitics respectively) was changed in two recent years? Thanks, Ukrained (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ideal Power Converters

Has anyone heard of the destructive technology introduced by this start up in Austin, Texas? Well, please read www.idealpowerconverters.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.193.145 (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Solar power vs solar energy

Some of the energy article confuse solar power with solar energy especially one that are specific to a particular country. I have created Category:Solar energy by country and made a start at populating it. The contents of Category:Solar power by country should be checked to see if the articles are incorrectly categorised or named. The Solar power in the European Union article for example was incorrectly named. I have since moved it.-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Electric power transmission systems

There is a discussion, which articles should be included in the category:Electric power transmission systems. Your opinion is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Oppenheim, V.H. (1976- 77). "Why Oil Prices Go Up: The Past: We Pushed Them". Foreign Policy. No. 25 (Winter). {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |year= (help)
  2. ^ Caffentzis, George (1992). Midnight Oil: Work, Energy, War, 1973-1992. Boston: Autonomedia.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Energy/Archive_2&oldid=1137385405"