Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy

What should the fossil fuel phase-out article look like?

If you have a view please comment at Talk:Fossil_fuel_phase-out#Scope_and_structure_of_the_article?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

History of ethanol fuel in Brazil

History of ethanol fuel in Brazil has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Barnstar

There is now a barnstar available for this WikiProject, see Template:The Energy Barnstar. Jerm (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Featured article review for Oil Shale

I have nominated Oil shale for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 17:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Energy in the European Union stub

I am changing a "redirect" to Energy policy of the European Union in a Energy in the European Union page, a talk about that is open. --Robertiki (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Russia in the European energy sector nominated for "in the news" - needs update

I had no idea this article existed until very recently. It could do with some update if you have time:

Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#March_8

Chidgk1 (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Nuclear energy, part of the problem not the solution

I have been concerned for some time that nuclear is touted as the 'clean' ie non-carbon emmitting, energy of the future to tackle climate change, but the reverse is true, all the nuclear power rleased since the atomn was first split is added to an already heating planet caused by CO2 trapping energy. Unlike fossil fuels, uranium has never been part of Earth's energy cycle, without humans causing a nuclear reaction, this energy would remain trapped forever.

It is 1950s technology, using steam power, an even older technology of the 19th century when global warming was just being started, to run turboines. It has thus added the sum total of energy released to the problem of a warming world, and cqannot be considered any part of a solution. Yet nbuclear cultists continue to claim it is thechnology for the future, that anyone who opposes it is a Luddite and doesn't understand, that nuclrear supporters are advanced and hampered by the ignorant. Actually the reverse is true, modern technology is harnessing power from wind, water, tides and sun, this technology did not exist back in the 1950s when nuclear was started principally to supply plutonium for weapons. The mind set of its fans is thus fixed in the 1950s, and no amount of raqtional argument or logic seems capable of persuading them it is not what it seems. That's why I call it a cult; based on false beliefs, mired with secrecy and misinformation, and growing every more costly so much so that nuclear builders demand a high energy cost paid by consumers to profit them into the future. So electricy bills would need to rise and rise to pay for the costs whiuch run into many billions and are revised upwards during the course of the ten years or so build time. Renrewables at the sdame time are halving in cost annually and are now the cheapest and fastest means of supplying actual clean cheap energy, something nuclear constantly claims when what it produces is worse than dirty and costs the Earth.

The only possible future is 100% actual renewables, and not those claimed as renewable which are simply not, such as geothermal, which again adds all the energy created to the already warming planet, energy which would otherwise remain deep in the planel's crust. Nuclear power pumps billions of gallons of hot water into the oceans, considered waste by the blinkered nuclear cultists and of no consequence, illustrating their total ignorance of not just the ecosystem but of energy reality.

It would be good to see Wikipedia reflect this reality and not be so encouraging and complacent about nuclear. And I haven't once mentioned nuclear disasters, of which there are hundreds but only t5he biggest are mentioned, and the continuing problem of sp-ent fuel, which has always going to be a problem for future generations to cope with, I think future generations are going to have trouble enough simply surviving the shattered world we will be leaving them. Another problem o9f nuclear never considered or mentioned is the fact of sea levelk rise and the inconvenient fact that nuclear power stations are almost always situated on coasts at sea level for access to unlimited cooling water, the energy so transferred being pumped straight into the sea. Perhaps nuclear fans can enlighten everyone on what will happen to a flooded nuclear pile?

And with Thwaites Glacier due to break off into the sea in a matter of 2-5 years, I wonder if any p[oliticians are considering how to protect, empty and clean all the existing nuclear plants before that happens. Building any more is folly of a kind not even hominids have indulged in before.

PetePassword (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)