Talk:Energy transition

Merger proposal 2022

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

merged Hedgehoque (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Currently we have a very detailed Renewable energy transition article in contrast to the short Energy transition article focussing on definition and historic transitions in general. But in almost all appearances, the term is used in the renewable energy context. Users search for "energy transition", not for "renewable energy transition" as you can see in Google trends. The current state of both articles with multiple templates above the introduction does not leave a good impression. A merge could solve the issues. Historic energy transitions remain an interesting aspect. But they can be described in a sub-section. It has been two years since the last merge proposal by User:Chidgk1 ending with no consensus, but with only one opposing vote. It is time for a new approach.Hedgehoque (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support as although there is some nuclear renewables are still by far the main part of the current energy transition. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose the concept of energy transition is an important one in the history of energy, and deserves its own article. I agree that the current renewable energy transition is the most important today, but this does not mean the articles should be merged. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

You are absolutely right that the concept is important - but as the energy transition article is quite small I don't see any problem in keeping all the info from that article in a merged article. Also since I wrote my comment above UK (and maybe other countries) has discussed new nuclear - so a sentence on that should be added into a merged article otherwise readers might be confused if it was mentioned in energy transition. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The energy transition article is not that small at 26 kb, with substantial scope for expansion. Also length alone does not justify a merge. Both topics are notable and worthy of their own article. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I have put a note at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Energy#Merger_discussion_for_Renewable_energy_transition as I think the discussion is important and more people from that project should comment. Maybe you guys can spread the word a bit more too. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to support a merge since this article is relatively short and largely focuses on the present renewable energy transition, resulting in overlap. I'd to see more historical content if kept separate, or transfer the material here about renewables. Reywas92^Talk 14:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

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.

After four weeks I see a 3:1 support to merge, including my own support. Participation could have been better. I agree that historic energy transitions can be seen as an individual topic. However, the paragraph we have is only 3.5K in text, 7K including references. Expanding it, or launching an additional article about 'Historic energy transitions' would have my support. Merging was a first step before we can move on. The lead has become a mixture of both articles and partly rewritten, with a focus on the transition towards RE. Everything else has remained largely untouched. Condensing, structuring and updating still to be done.

Some of the changes:

• File:Bp world energy consumption 2016.gif - removed as outdated. The energy consumption graphics has about the same content.
• removed the outdated 2005-2050 scenario and lead paragraph about Germany
• removed the triple pic (main souces) from energy transition. Similar content is provided by the other images (now as multiple image unter Technologies)
• passage about mineral demand moved from lead into a sub-section of impacts
• repaired maintenance issues with cite templates
• IPCC sources section prepared

Hedgehoque (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this should have moved forward with only 3 people (other than the nominator) participating in this discussion. Where is the broad consensus? --Ita140188 (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I am also a bit disappointed about the lack of interest (or indifference?) about this crucial topic within the WP community. One month should be a sufficient time. The merger proposal was prominently indicated on top of both articles, on the WP merger proposal page and the climate change project page. Imho 'energy transition' should be among the top 10 WP articles because an it is the foremost requirement in a response to climate change - and you can see a broad consensus in science about that. But the importance lies on the renewable energy part. Consequently, the term 'energy transition' is mainly framed in this context. The historic view is an enrichment. But if you focus on the past and not the presence in the ET article, it would be the wrong emphasis. The article is already improving. Thank you, @Chidgk1, for the first edits. Hedgehoque (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Historically, there is no energy transition so far

I am not very at ease to write it, but it looks like that the concept of "energy transition" does not fit with the history of energy uses which took place in the last two centuries. See : The “Energy Transition”, from Atomic Utopia to Climate Denial: United States, 1945-1980 Abstract : "The oil companies’ strategies for producing ignorance have already been the subject of important historical works. This article contributes to this question but with a different perspective. It focuses less on climate scepticism than on a more subtle, more acceptable and therefore much more general form of climate denial: the futurology of the “energy transition”, in which the history of energy has played a fundamental role. First, I describe the intellectual space, straddling atomic utopia and neo-Malthusianism, in which the idea of energy transition emerged in the 1950s. Then I focus on the work of Cesare Marchetti, an atomic scientist who, in 1974, applied the logistic model (or S-curve) to the analysis of the evolution of the global energy mix. Finally, I show the considerable influence of this logistical modeling within the Carter administration, among Exxon executives and climate scientists of the 1980s. Yet it is precisely this assumption that is problematic: considering energies, like technologies, as distinct and competing entities, when in fact they entertain relationships which are both competitive and symbiotic." DOI : 10.3917/rhmc.692.0115. Richard H. S CHALLENBERG , « Evolution, adaptation and survival : the very slow death of the American charcoal iron industry », Annals of Science, vol. 32, n°4, p. 341-358 ; Louis C. H UNTER, History of Industrial Power in the United States, 1750-1930. Waterpower in the Century of Steam, Charlottesville, University Press of Virginia, 1979