Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
Adding POV tag
I've added a POV tag to the template, for the reasons discussed above. -- Johnfos 02:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Redundant
Isn't this redundant to Template:Sustainability and Energy Development? (SEWilco 03:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC))
Renewable energy defined
Renewable energy flows involve natural phenomena such as sunlight, wind, tides and geothermal heat, as the International Energy Agency explains:
"Renewable energy is derived from natural processes that are replenished constantly. In its various forms, it derives directly from the sun, or from heat generated deep within the earth. Included in the definition is electricity and heat generated from solar, wind, ocean, hydropower, biomass, geothermal resources, and biofuels and hydrogen derived from renewable resources." (see Renewable energy... into the mainstream p. 9.)
Each of these sources, including geothermal energy, has unique characteristics which influence how and where they are used.
If we look at the "2004 Fuel Shares of World Total Primary Energy Supply" data from IEA, we see that Geothermal energy is included in the renewable energy breakdown. (see Renewables in global energy supply: An IEA facts sheet, p. 3.)
-- Johnfos 02:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Nuclear Power
The International Energy Agency does not classify nuclear power as renewable.[1] It is misleading to list Nuclear power in this template. -- Johnfos 05:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Honestly, I thought the consensus was that there is no consensus. If you go to the Renewable energy article, it's fairly contested. Furthermore, if I go to the Japanese renewable energy article, they add at the end "Nuclear energy is sometimes included," which pretty well sums it up I think. But you really need to be more specific, is nuclear a:
This is kind of like asking "is Missouri a southern state." Some people say it is, some people say it isn't. I think it's probably going to stay but with some disclaimer note saying that it's contested. But I'm not 100% neutral myself anyway. I hope someone else comments. -Theanphibian (talk o contribs) 22:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
This is an unsigned message from Ghetsmith which I received on my Talk page:
It's clear that Ghetsmith is pushing a particular POV, and the threatening tone of this message precludes further discussion with this user... -- Johnfos 23:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Nuclear Power Explained
If you are interested in a fuller explination of why nuclear power is renewable, there are several good books at the local bookstore regarding this topic. Nuclear Energy Now is a good source, ISBN 978-0-470-05136-8, p.1-200. Or if you are at a University, you can ask your Electrical Engineering professors. Some universities offer graduate level courses on nuclear power. Ghetsmith 03:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Move request
I think it would be better to change this to just a list of energy sources. It wouldn't add that many items to it, and there's no reason to make a template of renewable sources over making one for fossil fuels. It would just be better for everyone if we made it representitive of all power production. -Theanphibian (talk o contribs) 05:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Quit your stupid edit war
Nuclear is sustainable, not renewable. And energy development has nothing to do with renewable energy, they are two totally different subjects. 199.125.109.108 04:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Adding nuclear power or changing the name of the template are vandalism. Please stop. 199.125.109.20 09:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that sustainable vs. renewable is an interesting debate. If renewable energy refers to something that will never run out (such as water power), and you want to claim that nuclear power, although it can presumably last for a long, long, long time, will eventually run out (because it uses up material that will eventually run out), then wouldn't solar power similarly be merely a sustainable energy source, as the sun will, eventually run out of hydrogen? (I overlooked that this was mentioned in the edit summary, but now that I see it there, I think it should be discussed here, rather than remain ignored where it is now.) DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 12:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Expansion of this template
This is a really small template. Is there a reason it has been kept so small? If not, I plan on expanding it a bit. There are a few reasons for doing so. 1) Centralizes more article links for easier access. 2) Makes the template more prominent - currently it is hidden between the masses of text and images on articles, making it difficult to locate. 3) Lends it more significance and makes it look more substantial and credible. 4) It looks better when it's a reasonable size than when it is too small, as it is now. Now, if there is a reason it's been kept small, I won't expand it. Please let me know of the status. Thanks! Vamooom (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Content dispute
I have no idea what the source of the desire is to disparage biomass, but in the form of dung and wood it forms the backbone of renewable energy in the world. It is separate from Biofuel because it is a solid, while Biofuel is a liquid, and each has a very different source and application. "Biofuels" was renamed "Biofuel" some time ago, and the template has just now been updated to reflect that change. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Objections to Removal Of Biomass/Biofuel
Please voice your objections to removal of biomass/biofuel here. It is important to ensure that these items are actually "renewable". I am starting the discussion now because this page is subject to large scale edit wars. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Renewable energy flows involve natural phenomena such as sunlight, wind, tides and geothermal heat, as the International Energy Agency explains:
"Renewable energy is derived from natural processes that are replenished constantly. In its various forms, it derives directly from the sun, or from heat generated deep within the earth. Included in the definition is electricity and heat generated from solar, wind, ocean, hydropower, biomass, geothermal resources, and biofuels and hydrogen derived from renewable resources." (see Renewable energy... into the mainstream p. 9.)
Each of these sources, including biomass and biofuels, has unique characteristics which influence how and where they are used.
We should follow the IEA approach which classifies biomass and biofuels as renewable. Johnfos (talk) 09:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Requests
1) purge biomass/biofuel because they are too similar to coal/petroleum
2) change hydropower to hydroelectricity since the template links to hydropower, or vice versa
TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Template: Sustainable energy
I found an old template, Template: Renewable energy, that seems to be more comprehensive and better put together than this one. I'm going to clean it up, and then place that template into all the renewable energy articles. That should be uncontroversial? LK (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Biomass
I noticed that there is already some protest against the "biomass" link in the template. How about we change the term to "plant material" ? The term "Biomass" is a bit linked to the direct burning of plant material (ie wood, ...), atleast in Europe. This, aldough this is incorrect, it also refers to the production of biodiesel, hydrogen, ... (the latter ie using microbial fuel cells ). If we were to change it to "plant material" this would no longer be so. A alternative is to simply update the biomass article to add the extra meanings. KVDP (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Solar energy
I would recommend changing this back to Solar power. Solar energy is too general a link. When we are talking about renewable energy we are talking about ways we can power, say a tractor, or a home, not all the ways the sun powers the earth, which is what the solar energy article covers. 199.125.109.31 (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
--Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.239.53 (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Template image
The current image (of the wind turbines) is not suited to the template. See User_talk:Ssolbergj#Renewable energy image --> Ssolbergj post: I recently took notice of your Wind turbine icon. This icon however seems to be used in the renewable energy template, as the main image; see [2]; since it doesn't belong here, I was wondering perhaps a new image could be made for this template ? Perhaps it's best to have an image showing a leaf being blown over a water mass. The leaf would signify plant matter (also = energy, ie using microbial fuel cells), some stripes behind the leaf can signify wind power, the water mass (with some small waves) can signify the water power. The image isn't totally complete (there's eg also geothermal energy, ...) but atleast it will be much better than the current image, which only represents wind power.
Besides the idea of a leaf being blown over the water, an other approach is to simply list the natural elements in a cartwheel; similar to http://www.sonic.net/~lilith/EnviraFuels/biokids/bk-renew.html and http://blog.thebodyshop.com.au/2008/02/mrw-blows-our-mind.html
Please have a new image made and change the image link KVDP (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
KVDP (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
New Category
I believe there is an important category of renewable energy missing from this template. We need a section for animal motive power. Hamsters, slaves, and other animals have been used for centuries as a power source for society. This is clearly a renewable power source since we can just create more organisms when they eventually die. How has this clearly essential form of renewable energy been over looked? This is ridiculous! Rukaribe (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Formatting / IEA classification
As a rule, there is no maintenance tags in the templates. Also, the notice about IEA classification should be a hidden note for editors, not shown publicly. As there seems to be a dispute if to use the IEA classification or any other system, I propose to restore the last stable version (IEA terminology) and change it only after discussing at the talk page (if there is a consensus to change it). Beagel (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Geothermal
Where's geothermal? I would expect it to be on this list. I agree with all the others, and the omission of nuclear, which clearly requires a depletable resource, uranium. And I'm studing a PhD in Commodities, specializing in Energy WillSmith (London) (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Also I note geothermal is included in the related Template:Sustainable energy WillSmith (London) (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Carbon neutral fuel
I think carbon neutral fuel should be included here because of the profound implications for greenhouse gas mitigation from transportation uses. Sure, it's not defined by the IEA as a source, but that's meaningless because many biofuels have an agricultural carbon footprint larger than petroleum on balance because of the fossil fuels necessary for their agriculture and fertilization, and the fact that they leave their fields which would normally be forest or scrub barren except during the growing season. This is a remarkably small navbox and it seems that there are some substantial WP:OWNership issues in play. --Cupco 20:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Template size
This template is way too wide for what is intended - a list of eight links. Any reason for not going back to the old style? The new one is nothing but a huge block of white space. Delphi234 (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon