This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot(talk | contribs) at 04:48, 17 January 2024(Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 6 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Keep 1 different rating in {{WikiProject Articles for creation}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Science}}, {{WikiProject Engineering}}, {{WikiProject Environment}}, {{WikiProject Energy}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 04:48, 17 January 2024 by Cewbot(talk | contribs)(Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 6 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Keep 1 different rating in {{WikiProject Articles for creation}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Science}}, {{WikiProject Engineering}}, {{WikiProject Environment}}, {{WikiProject Energy}}.)
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering 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.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
The section title is misleading. The criticism is of closed-loop geothermal as a concept, but its presence on the Eavor page implies a criticism of the company.
The term "open loop geothermal systems" is not defined here or in any of the references. It could refer to traditional geothermal systems assuming re-injection, but appears to be comparing Eavor to Enhanced Geothermal Systems(EGS). To be completely accurate, it should point out that EGS has also not yet reached commercial viability.
The statement "...it is highly unlikely that mitigating downsides associated with open-loop convection-based systems will compensate economically for switching to a far less efficient conduction-based heat transfer" is the editor's opinion of a future probability and is not specifically addressed in either of the references ([7],[8]) cited for the section.
Reference [7] does make an economic argument, but does not meet the definition of a reliable source. It is a blog post by a vendor associated with a competing technology. It cites two published papers including [8] but is not itself from a reliable source. The author even acknowledges his bias for EGS and his purpose in discrediting closed-loop geothermal efforts.
I'm not sure how to edit the section to correct these problems. Should I first mark it as disputed?
@CustEng: Your removal of the criticism section was was fine. It may be appropriate to put that criticism in some other article, like heat exchanger maybe, but doing so might violate the WP:UNDUE policy because closed/open loop exchangers are merely mentioned there. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
