Talk:Alternative energy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Energy (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled discussion[edit]

This article redirected to Energy development which doesn't suffice. In the past it redirected to Renewable energy and Future energy development. Neither of these are equivalent to Alternative energy. Renewable energy is close but not necessarily the same. So I'm starting the page. --Duk 15:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds precisely like renewable energy (or sustainable energy) to me. What exactly is the article supposed to be about, if not the same things? Richard001 21:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
By definition, alternative energy doesn't harm the environment. Some forms of renewable energy, like large hydropower installations, don't meet that definition. This is an important distinction, and "alternative energy" is a widely used term - both need to be covered. --Duk 00:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Every method that humans use to harness energy from nature impacts the environment. See for example Environmental effects of wind power. The question is not whether, but how much. Large hydropower installations, for example, typically impact the environment far less than burning the equivalent amount of coal over the project lifetime, but this does not mean damming rivers has no impact - the impact is enormous, just less than the even more enormous impact of burning large amounts of coal. Most renewable energy sources are diffuse, and require modifying the natural environment on large scales to generate amounts of power comparable to what humans get from fossil fuels. This is not an argument against, say, putting thousands of wind turbines in the Great Plains, but rather an acknowledgement that large-scale alternative energy development is going to have a lot of impact, and will therefore generate lots of debate. In general, the best position to take in a debate is on the side of the facts, so rather than suggest there is some form of large-scale power generation which doesn't harm the environment in any way, it's probably more effective to document the various kinds of harm caused by all the available options, so people can decide which harm they will accept. Since people aren't going to voluntarily stop using electricity and fuel, they can only choose which sort of harm to absorb (or, possibly, to dump on other people in the form of external costs). By the way, I think the real distinction between Alternative energy and Renewable energy is not that the former is somehow magically free from any environmental impact, but rather that alternative energy includes some non-renewable alternatives to the forms of energy that currently dominate. Some nonrenewable alternatives include coal liquefaction and Coal bed methane extraction. --Teratornis (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for external links[edit]

I just wanted to suggest an external link for this page. The following is one of the most comprehensive alternative energy news websites:

Renewable Energy is very nice to have around these days because we can do things and it wont hurt the Earth or us at all. Its very nice to know. -Ethel Bennett —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I made the mistake of posting my link to [http://] without discussing it here. The site is a definite resource that would be of great interest to people interested in this subject. The site is a Social Network with access to a tremendous amount of news, research, and important links to motivate people towards a path of deploying Alternative Energy. This is a vital interest in our time and this site is meant to be a portal to this new era. A review at Killer Startups recently called it a A Portal for Saving the World. The purpose of adding this link to Wikipedia is to be a service to the internet user. It is understood that there is no SEO benefit because of the NOFOLLOW links. Dougschi (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougschi (talkcontribs) 03:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you would have more luck posting it to Renewable energy because this article really isn't much here to cover content. -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 03:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I will do thatDougschi (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wave Power / Energy[edit]

While a WP search of wave energy takes you to wave power, my attempt to add wave energy to the article caused a red word with no page. I changed it to wave power. I would guess that no one is really trying to make a distinction between power over time and energy, which are equivalent. Perhaps a more sophisticated redirect is needed for wave power so that the entry is symmetric with the other energy entries. Nukeh (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wave energy now redirects to wave power it seems. Still, 'energy' usually implies the physical concept, as in wave energy as it fits into physics and the physical sciences. Power typically refers to using it as an energy source. -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 21:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a fair amount of this type of naming inconsistency among the articles pertaining to energy. See for example Geothermal power and Category:Geothermal energy. Some people seem to use the rule that "power" refers to generating electricity, and "energy" refers to using energy in other forms, such as process heat, building heating/cooling, mechanical work, and fuel. This might reflect the general lack of grid energy storage, which means when you generate electricity, you usually have to consume it immediately, so the natural way to think about electricity is as a form of power. If Energy storage technology improves, that distinction may blur. Perhaps a better place to discuss the naming of energy/power-related articles is on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy. --Teratornis (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hydro Nukes and Coal violate definition of "conventional"[edit]

If alternative energy means non conventional, then since hydro, coal and nuclear are well established conventional sources contributing significant power worldwide, neither belong on the list. If any or all should be on the list, our definition must be modified.

Wiktionary has the following definitions. Both conflict with ours:

A. Energy derived from any source other than fossil fuels
B. Energy derived from any renewable source; i.e other than fossil fuels or nuclear fission

If it is B, then this article should merge with renewables. If it is A, then Nukes are on the list. Perhaps the wiktionary definition is wrong and we could take the time consuming path of debating a new definition eg:

  1. non fossil fuel (coal, hydro, nukes make list)
  2. low pollution (clean coal might make this list, but not current nukes due to unsolved safe waste storage problem)
  3. new low CO
    technology (hydro off list, clean coal and Pebble bed reactors on list)
  4. non CO
    emitting (biomass off list, as well as all of 3)

Really, we can have lists topics for all of these, but what we shouldn't do is make up a definition to fit the technologies we favor. We rather should cover the subject of whatever the generally accepted meaning of the term is. As a person unconnected with the energy field, when I utter the term, I mean definition 2, but I can see someone working close to the field would view the meaning as "unconventional". In any case, as the def currently stands, hydro coal and nukes must remain off the list. -J JMesserly (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Renewables are here and now, and not some alternative fancy[edit]

We need to rethink this article, particularly the lead. It is not satisfactory to call fission "conventional" and to call renewables "alternative". And then go on to say: "Alternative energy, except perhaps in niche markets, is generally more expensive than conventional sources, but if various problems can be overcome, it holds considerable potential." Renewables are making significant contributions to energy supply now, which simply wouldn't be the case if they were "more expensive" or had "problems to be overcome".

Renewable energy accounted for 10.76% of the domestically-produced energy used in the United States in the first eight months of 2008. This share is only slightly less than the contribution from nuclear power (12.39%). And while consumption of nuclear power dropped slightly during the first eight months of 2008, compared to the same period for 2007 (5.629 quads, down from 5.637 quads), domestic renewable energy production's share increased by more than seven percent (4.886 quads, up from 4.549 quads).[1] Johnfos (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-think away. You seem to equate alternative to renewable, which is a reasonable point of view. If we can agree on that definition, then we should merge this article with Renewable energy. If we don't want to equate the two, then I don't see any possible definition other than "alternative to what we are mostly using now". Conventional/non-alternative in that sense would include both nuclear and hydroelectric. --Art Carlson (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I've said above that "It is not satisfactory to call fission "conventional" and to call renewables "alternative". So I'm certainly not wanting "to equate alternative to renewable". Perhaps you mis-read what I said. Johnfos (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
In simple terms, I would say that nuclear fission Generation III reactors and Generation IV reactors, and Third-generation renewable energy technologies are "alternative". All the rest are quite widely used and so are "conventional". Johnfos (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
If we are able to come to an agreement about how the term is generally understood (among the population or among experts), that would be ideal. If not, then the best we can do is talk a bit in the article about the difficulty in classifying some technologies.
As to nuclear fission, I would be inclined to classify Gen III and Gen IV reactors as conventional, even if they are not widely used at this time. Despite important improvements, they still have the major characteristics of Gen II reactors. Fusion, in contrast, is more like a completely new technology.
I think we agree that 1st generation renewables should be considered conventional, and 3rd generation alternative. I'm not so sure about 2nd generation renewables (solar hot water, PV, wind, ethanol). With the possible exception of wind, these still seem to have only a tiny quantitative impact on energy production. PV and ethanol also have questionable economics at this point.
Can some of the other editors weigh in on where they think the line should be drawn? --Art Carlson (talk) 12:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I have been doing some thinking on this and I believe there is a hidden sense that was not surfaced in the second wiktionary definition I listed above. Definitions reflect usage, so the empirical task is to observe the motivation of choice of terms between renewable vs alternative. It is true that many folks use them interchangibly, and if that is the only usage, the article should merge with renewables. It is true there is a narrow technical sense of "alternative to convention", but already we are seeing problems with that. Are these two definitions all there really are? Let's look at the data from broad usage. For those that refuse to use the terms interchangibly, in my experience a substantial portion of folks use the term "alternative energy" rather than renewable because renewable can be used for biofuels like brazillian sugar or palm oil whose production results in the destruction of forests that otherwise would be sequestering carbon. Such users scoff at the notion that the terms are interchangable. "After all", they point out, "whale oil is renewable energy". Their point: "Yes it's technically possible, but is it a real alternative?" And that form of question is the key driver of the hidden meaning. If your family was lost and starving in the forest, then technically speaking one alternative is to kill one of the children and use the body for meat. But is it a "real" alternative? The missing sense in definition 2 is the notion of acceptability.

"Real" alternatives are those that are acceptable. In our case: Energy sources that are "real" alternatives to the unacceptable consequences of reliance of fossil fuel and current nuclear technology. Regardless where on the political and technical spectrum one draws the line on what is acceptable, this is the definition that is the center of the debates. We see evidence that it is a socially defined notion in the efforts of advocacy groups to move public opinion one way or the other on what is acceptable. Advocates of pebble bed reactors complain that these are alternative energy sources. Critics respond with indignation. Why. Because alternative to convention is irrelevant to them. Many appreciate the technical merits that they are indeed alternative because they are in fact radically different in design from conventional reactors. But the waste issue is still an unsolved safety concern for much of the public, so both POVs would have to be described regarding PB as an alternative energy source. Of course you avoid all the bother if you rely on the narrow technical sense. I advocate to instead surface these points of contention. My proposed definition would be something along the lines of the following:

3. Energy derived from sources that do not share the undesired consequences of current energy sources; i.e climate change or unsafe nuclear waste storage.

Yes, there will be POV debates on what is "undesired"/ acceptable, and this might get some eyebrow elevation from those aware of the NPOV issues. I answer that there are contentious articles in WP because the subject matter is contentious. Assuming the guise of a technical definition as is currently proposed only serves to ignore the debate rather than surface it. As articles like Abortion show, WP does not hide from accurately describing POVs in a NPOV way. For example, we might have a passage like the following: "If burning coal produced little or no CO2 and other pollutants, advocates make the case that such 'clean coal' technology qualifies as a true alternative energy technology. Many critics consider this claim of alternative energy status as political gamesmanship. The argument is that the cost of insuring no atmospheric CO2 release is so great that "clean coal" presents a false promise that industry advocates are using as a delaying tactic in order to put in place a prolonged period of phased reductions whose goal they have no intention of achieving." -J JMesserly (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi JJ, I appreciate that you've taken some time to articulate your thoughts, and I'm interested in what you are saying, but could I please ask you to summarise your main point in a sentence or two? Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The definition I propose above in blue outline is the sense of alternative when we ask, "yes, but is it a real alternative?". This sense carries two ideas. Firstly, it looks to alternative energy source outcomes, not whether or not the source requires alternative technologies. Building microhydro is an alternative energy source to building more coal plants, and yet it fails the current definition because it is a conventional technology. The second idea is acceptability of a choice. If a proposal is a choice that one could never make, then it is not a "real" alternative. Some feel that it is absurd to consider nukes as "real" alternatives because of proliferation or waste concerns. Others would consider even 1970s technology nukes an acceptable alternative energy source to running cars on foreign oil. Yet even the most stalwart supporter of nukes would not regard a Chernobyl breeder as a "real" alternative. An article that fleshed out these tradeoffs that people are making would be possible if we focus on this sense of "alternative". -J JMesserly (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Some of what you are saying reminds me of this definition: "alternative energy - energy derived from sources that do not use up natural resources or harm the environment" [2] -- Johnfos (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
You miss the central notion of socially determined definitions. While I personally strongly agree with the desirability of what your definition would enumerate, that would be like saying that the definition used for flag etiquette should be that the flag should never be flown at half mast. There is a great deal of commonality regarding etiquette in indicating respect. Either with acceptable technologies or acceptable behavior, what seems like arbitrary differences appear less arbitrary when the rationale is understood. For example, Saudi Arabia cannot fly their flag at half mast because it depicts the Shahadah. There is strong common ground over the principle of respect, and similarly there is common ground regarding alternative energy safety issues. For example there is undoubtedly wide concensus that Chernobyl reactors do not present an acceptable alternative energy option.
A critic of this position might claim that this would be little different from proposing that the article be renamed the "Better energy", with the invitation for every wikipedian to contribute their subjective opinion and join in an all out edit war riot. My response is that controversies are not rooted in arbitrary and narrowly held subjective differences in taste nor are the alternate POVs impossible to cover in an encyclopedia- with this particular topic an excellent case in point. A full description of our real energy alternatives deserves focused attention and at a factual level, there is a great deal of agreement on what the trade offs are. The controversy concerns the judgement of what the acceptable balance between those trade offs are. Not covering the trade offs and the advocacy arguments pro and con keeps people ignorant, and that is not what WP is about.-J JMesserly (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Sustainable energy?[edit]

It seems that editors have differing views about alternative energy, and that there are few reliable sources to support a comprehensive article. So I'd like to suggest that we simply redirect this page to Sustainable energy. Johnfos (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary : "a) not from nuclear fuel. b) not from fossil fuel." That's a reliable source that says alternative energy does not equal sustainable energy, either as understood in the current description in that article, as well as the science (thorium as a nuclear fuel is abundant).
Regarding my extensive suggestion above- I'm willing to table it and go along with a concensus definition in the interest of maintaining the autonomy of the alternative energy article. The social definition thing was an idea that no one has expressed interest in at this time, so I am certainly willing to table it in favor of Wiktionary's A or B definition. The item I do feel strongly about is opposition to the technical definition ("unconventional"="alternative"). -J JMesserly (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I support the proposal by Johnfos to redirect to Sustainable energy. When the two terms are and are not synonymous can be covered in Sustainable energy#Distinction from other terms. Just because "alternative energy has a definition does not mean it is an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We need reliable secondary sources. --Art Carlson (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to throw in the towel. Consider Alternative rock or Alternative education articles. I agree there are differing views on what alternative energy is, but that doesn't disqualify it as subject matter for an encyclopedia. My recent changes reflect that premise. But even without this precedent, and consider the question of the destination for a merge. Which political faction do we side with for the redirect? Is it the climate change folks that would allow clean coal and nukes, or the renewables faction that would allow palm oil but not nukes? Or the sustainable folks that allow nukes since they are sustainable over extended periods of time, but not natural gas. Or the US energy independence folks who define natural gas as an alternative energy since North America has lots of it. Who are the anointed ones that deserve the label "alternative energy"? No- the best solution is to follow precedent on the "Alternate-(blank)" articles and not take sides. Generally these appear to be survey articles. I made a start at one last night. Also provided ample secondary sources. Hope this helps. -J JMesserly (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The new edits look interesting. I am willing to wait to see how it develops before taking any drastic action. --Art Carlson (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well Art, other energy articles require attention and I intend to back off and let other folks develop the article from here, it is clearly beyond stub status. I leave a framework that could be fleshed out more or re factored if my structure doesn't make the best sense. I do believe that the current article answers all the objections raised above. It is not a dictionary entry, has multiple solid and relevant secondary sources, and has a solid rationale for existence as a distinct article.

There are areas for improvement. I was unclear what sort of depth folks would be interested in on some of the sections and deliberately left them spartan. Also, it probably would be would be useful if we had a table with example controversial technologies that illustrate the differences between the different schools of thought regarding alternative energy. A central survey type article is the logical location for such comparisons. EG rows: Compressed-air energy storage, current tech fission, coal liquefaction, algol, garbage burning, natural gas, then with columns indicating whether they meet definitions for the various schools: renewable, sustainable, energy independence or CO2 free definitions of alternative.

If you prefer to add your "non conventional energy" category, there is certainly a body of authoritative works to support a description of the perspective of this school of thought on what is and is not an alternative energy source. -J JMesserly (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort you have put in, JJ. You have certainly given us something to work with and build on... Johnfos (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Alcohol as alternative to fossil fuels: Unbalanced tag[edit]

There are a string of statements here that portray biofuels in a negative light. The reality is that biofuels have both positive and negative views associated with them, and both should be presented for balance. For example, there are differing views on the food vs fuel debate and there is actually considerable evidence that biofuels are not to blame for high food prices (see, for eg., [3], [4], [5]).

If we are to focus on alcohol as alternative to fossil fuels I would have thought it would be instructive to explore the Brazilian situation, since much has happened there. Johnfos (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Does this really require extensive discussion? If you like, soften it with, "though it is a [[controversial assertion]], some experts believe...", then link the "controversial assertion" to a section of the ethanol fuel article for a full examination of the issue. There isn't anything nefarious going on here. It is a fact that cellulosic is being aggressively investigated an alternative fuel source to ethanol based on other biomass. If we are to explain why some feel an alternative is required, we have to explain what the undesirable aspect(s) of other ethanols are. That is the only purpose of bringing up the negatives. No blanket indictment of biofuels was intended. Obviously, this has nothing to do with Algol, switchgrass, willow, or poplar to the extent that they do not compete for the same land used to grow food crops. -J JMesserly (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

See what you think. I've tried to steer away from debate (which is covered elsewhere) and focus on a few basic facts about the transition from fossil fuels to alcohol alternatives. Johnfos (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It is as if you did not read my response at all. You have silenced the critics of the technology you appear to favor. Whether I agree with them or not, this article must enumerate the criticisms of each of the technologies so that the reader can understand why alternatives to them are being sought. Did the search for alternative fuels stretching from the middle ages through the 19th century, the 1970s and recent developments suddenly stop with renewables? Are all renewables equivalent to alternative energy? Not all people agree- why? Because not all people accept that all biofuels are acceptable alternatives. Why are people looking for alternatives to biofuels from food harvests? The reader does not know. You have entirely expunged any rationale. You have also expunged any statement that anyone believes that some biofuels are not acceptable. My cite succinctly demonstrated the POV of the critics are credible. You have expunged the fact that the US can never become anywhere near self sufficient on biofuels using its entire massive capacity to grow grain. Instead of telling why anyone would look for an alternative to ethanol, the reader is left without any impression why anyone ever would look for an alternative. The reader is unaware any debate exists, and is instead treated to a lengthy promotion of a particular technology. This is balance? -J JMesserly (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
There have been voluminous edits to other pages, but no response. No rationale has been given for elimination of the cited assertion that not all biofuels are universally regarded as alternative fuels. This information has been eliminated twice. I am having some difficultly understanding why the passage should not be restored. -J JMesserly (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

On site renewable energy options[edit]

I don't feel good about the reference added to a commercial cite, especially in the first line of the lead. Isn't there an independent, reliable source (scientific paper, government report) that provides similar information? --Art Carlson (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, that is a poor source. The things you mentioned, scientific papers, gov. reports, etc would get precedence over the existing reference. -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 15:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

suggestion if any[edit]

write over hear ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

suggestion if any[edit]

If you know any suggestion about "alternate sources of energy" please go to the heading "edit this page" and go at last and erase this paragraph and write your suggeston to help me.

Biogas digestion error[edit]

The last sentence of this section needs revision. I am unsure what the author wanted to say, but what is currently there cannot be true - DNA can not be manipulated to be crude oil. Perhaps he was referring to the EXCREMENT being like crude oil DUE TO DNA manipulation?--Sahmejil (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Man-Made Tornadoes[edit]

I am troubled by this recent edit. As a physicist, I have some doubts about whether it makes any sense, but I don't know for sure. That's what sources are for. The references given are essentially two blogs - no peer-reviewed publications, no reviews by government funding organizations, no money from major corporations, no coverage in mainline news or by professional organizations. This section could get very long if we include every idea that is blogged somewhere. Come to think of it, this whole section ("Relatively new concepts for alternative energy") is inviting such trouble. I propose removing mention of any concepts that do not have coverage in tertiary sources or solid secondary sources. (Gee, that sounds like a Wikipedia policy, doesn't it?) --Art Carlson (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The title of one of the blogs ends with "...touted as a viable power source". We don't need to add to the "touting". Vsmith (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Chopped along with bug shit bit. Vsmith (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I added it after I read it in a scientific magazine years ago. I did a quick search on Google for some sources to show I was not making it up. MSNBC used the same LiveScience source I did in an article. I will search right now and see if I can find something more scholarly for you. If not, I'll leave it be. And in no way was this any kind of "promotion". I have no affiliation with this guy. (Lightningflame1642 (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC))
Here is a website with a bunch of articles, if you'd like to read about it: The topic isn't important enough for me to make a big stink about not having it in this article. I just added it because I found the topic interesting. (Lightningflame1642 (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

Beleieve theres a Energy Indpendence "Day" Jul 10th[edit]

Beleive an Alternative Global Energy Indpendence Day was crtead in 2005 Jul 10th To promote "CLEAN GREEN" Alternative energy.Decisivevictory (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

nuclear power[edit]

isn't nuclear power considered an alternative form of energy giving that its harm to the environment is minimal and it doesn't include burning anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting argument. It's not normally called alternative energy, but it qualifies under the usual definition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


alternative energy is one of the most advanced form of energy in which —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


Source Definition
Oxford Dictionary energy fuelled in ways adriansearch=alternative+energy&textsearchtype=exact. Accessed May 2, 2008.</ref>

This part oft this list doesn't make sense and the link is a dead-link.

Knows anyone the correct meaning of the selection above an the correct target of the link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph before the table of contents[edit]

This seems to be the place where people are discussing things for this page. Let me know if I am doing something wrong here.

Yesterday I made some changes to the paragraph just before the table of contents. Today Arthur Rubin is telling me that my changes were wrong and didn't make sense, but I think my changes were better.

That paragraph is over generalizing on a couple of points and appears to be logically incorrect on another.

First, the paragraph says that "in general" the definition of "alternative energy" is ... and then gives a very specific meaning that only applies to modern society. It seems the general definition would be the one that encompasses all of the cases described in the article and that this is only one SPECIFIC definition, not the general one. My changes tried to make that clearer.

Second, the last sentence says that "official use of the term" excludes nuclear energy but if you read the citation it is only a legislative definition from Michigan, USA. I don't think it is valid to say that because Michigan, USA excludes nuclear energy that all official uses of the term also excludes nuclear energy. This is over generalizing from one specific case to a general case.

Last, the current text says that the less comprehensive definition INCLUDES nuclear energy. This makes no logical sense. It would mean that the MORE comprehensive definition includes fewer things ... which makes no sense. I think that the problem happened when someone changed "excludes" to "includes" here:

Please help me understand why my changes have been undone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherilyn69 (talkcontribs) 19:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

floating wind turbines[edit]

the company at the end of the paragraph said it was going to release a prototype in autumn 2009. has anything happened on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenne264 (talkcontribs) 03:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Economic Analysis of any energy solution[edit]

All systems have a life-cycle cost. Research (concept), design and development, production, sustaining (maintenance) and finally disposal or end-of-life. Each phase isn't free. This has to be part of the article, or else it's just selling "free energy" without the fine print.-- (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Air Hydro Power[edit]

Air Hydro Power (or Air Hydro Electric Station)

is using cloud water with head 2-3 km. It is a new alternative for Solar and Wind with the best economics (up to 500 W per 1 m2 of PP mesh for $0.25). It could give worldwide up to 810 TW renewable energy + water supply. Andrew Kazantsev (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC) is a primary source. If you put information directly from there it will be deleted. To add this information you would need a reliable (secondary) source WP:RELY that mentions them in an article about alternative energy. Bhny (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)