Talk:Renewable energy: Difference between revisions
→Dam failures: new section |
→Dam failures: comment |
||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
Clearly mention of such catastrophes is important, but where and how are equally important. Generically blaming "Renewable energy" is, at best, misdirected; [[Hydropower]] might be a better location for the argument, but both cited failures both involve external factors (i.e., Vajont might be more fairly characterized as an engineering failure). Again, I make no argument against inclusion, just against the framing as originally written.--[[User:E8|E8]] ([[User talk:E8|talk]]) 16:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC) |
Clearly mention of such catastrophes is important, but where and how are equally important. Generically blaming "Renewable energy" is, at best, misdirected; [[Hydropower]] might be a better location for the argument, but both cited failures both involve external factors (i.e., Vajont might be more fairly characterized as an engineering failure). Again, I make no argument against inclusion, just against the framing as originally written.--[[User:E8|E8]] ([[User talk:E8|talk]]) 16:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC) |
||
:Agree with E8. The issue is already covered, in context, in several other articles including [[Renewable energy debate]] and [[Hydroelectricity]]. [[User:Johnfos|Johnfos]] ([[User talk:Johnfos|talk]]) 21:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 21:15, 23 August 2016
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Renewable energy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 60 days  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Renewable energy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
 | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Heat pump was copied or moved into Renewable energy with this edit on 19 Jun 2015 10:42. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2016
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Your article is all positive and has none of the HUGE negatives of renewable energy: such as pollution, environmental destruction, expense, continual replacement needs. People needs the good the bad and the ugly in order to make and informed decision.
PLEASE CHANGE "It would also reduce environmental pollution such as air pollution caused by burning of fossil fuels and improve public health, reduce premature mortalities due to pollution and save associated health costs that amount to several 100 billion dollars annually only in the United States.[16] " TO "It could also reduce environmental pollution, specifically air pollution, caused by burning of fossil fuels and improve public health, reduce premature mortalities due to air pollution and save associated health costs that amount to several 100 billion dollars annually only in the United States.[16] "
Renewable energy sources INCREASE POLLUTION- to the water, to the land, particularly heavy metal pollution.They could reduce AIR pollution, but increase other forms of pollution, particularly toxic pollution. They only eliminate CO2 pollution from fossil fuels and other air pollution from poor burning sources, but increase air pollution if geothermal or open pit mining is used for the manufacture or use of renewable energy. The manufacturing waste, the battery waste, the mining waste, the electricity use are all not mentioned. For example, a set of solar panels with batteries need to replace the batteries every 3 years for optimum function, which is very expensive and causes heavy metal waste permanently deposited in the ecosystem. In order to get the specific elements to manufacture the batteries and the solar panels, many heavy metals must be mined, causing dangerous pollutants being put into water and illness to workers and people downstream. Solar panels also lose approximately 50% of their energy production within 5 years due to breakdown of the panels, and must also be replaced, leading to an increase in waste, increase in needs for panels and batteries, increase in weardown of batteries, increasing battery waste. The cost to produce electricity with solar or wind is 10X what is currently paid for electricity due to hardware costs, which will cripple our poorest people and cause them to starve to stay warm/cool, which is a HUGE , very real concern. The cost of a wind power tower means it takes 15-20 years to pay off at higher than normal electrical rates, and it is waste at the end of the pay off period, so does not ever make enough electricity to create any revenue. Drilling down for geothermal increases SO4 in the air which is 10000x more greenhouse gas then CO2. Dams destroy ecosystems, cause animal extinction(pacific Salmon) and cause very real disease(schistosomiasis,malaria) and need constant repair and input of concrete(high air water pollution, carbon footprint) and other heavy metals for repair. [1]
2001:56A:F018:D500:74B2:E515:5C91:F407 (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Not done Among many other issues with what you are asking for, barring manufacturing defects solar panels don't breakdown or degrade significantly in 5 years. GliderMaven (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ http://www.windontario.ca/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-darker-side-of-solar-power/article24649804/ http://www.solarscorecard.com/2014/2014-scorecard.php http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_url?url=https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gabrielle_Gaustad/publication/260211318_Economic_and_environmental_characterization_of_an_evolving_Li-ion_battery_waste_stream/links/541053c90cf2f2b29a40c564.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm055PJqJ8Ir98sDgBNrPsMcu533zg&nossl=1&oi=scholarr&ved=0ahUKEwiuofnm_LTMAhUQ-2MKHUrtDFwQgAMIHSgCMAA http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-01/documents/lithium_batteries_lca.pdf http://www.theguardian.com/vital-signs/2015/jun/10/tesla-batteries-environment-lithium-elon-musk-powerwall http://www.edwardgoldsmith.org/1018/dams-and-disease/
Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2016 (Grammer)
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Second Paragraph "renewables contributed 19,2 percent to humans' global energy consumption and 23,7 percent to" commas should be periods.
ThisIsRobokitty (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Dam failures
Clearly mention of such catastrophes is important, but where and how are equally important. Generically blaming "Renewable energy" is, at best, misdirected; Hydropower might be a better location for the argument, but both cited failures both involve external factors (i.e., Vajont might be more fairly characterized as an engineering failure). Again, I make no argument against inclusion, just against the framing as originally written.--E8 (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with E8. The issue is already covered, in context, in several other articles including Renewable energy debate and Hydroelectricity. Johnfos (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)