Portal talk:Renewable energy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Portal talk:Renewable energy/Todo)
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured portal The Renewable energy Portal is a featured portal, which means it has been identified as one of the best portals on Wikipedia. If you see a way this portal can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute.
Portal milestones
Date Process Result
October 8, 2010 Peer review Reviewed
October 2, 2011 Featured portal candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured portal
WikiProject Energy (Rated Portal-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Portal  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Environment (Rated Portal-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related page is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
 Portal  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 


Renewable energy images[edit]

Mariordo has kindly drawn my attention to a photostream at Flickr with interesting images about wind farms and renewable energy in general. See [1] Because they are US government work, they can be uploaded in the Commons. Johnfos (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sustainability, sustainable development, and engineering emerging technologies[edit]

Due to a potential appearance of conflict of interest concerns[2] I have started a Request for Comments on engineering sustainable development. Tim AFS (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Renewable energy into the mainstream[edit]

The 2014 REN21 Renewables 2014 Global Status Report is now available, and it says that "renewable energy has entered the mainstream". The global growth of most renewable energy technologies has been greater than many people anticipated, see Renewable energy commercialisation. There are now studies and proposals in many countries about practical pathways to 100% renewable energy. The variability of some renewables has turned out to be more easily manageable than first thought, see Variable renewable energy. The REN21 report says that renewable energies are not just energy sources, but ways to address pressing social, political, economic and environmental problems:

Today, renewables are seen not only as sources of energy, but also as tools to address many other pressing needs, including: improving energy security; reducing the health and environmental impacts associated with fossil and nuclear energy; mitigating greenhouse gas emissions; improving educational opportunities; creating jobs; reducing poverty; and increasing gender equality... Renewables have entered the mainstream.

-- Johnfos (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Johnfos, great comment. I assume as well that the controversiiaL aestetics of wind mills, which might either be seen as nuisance ("asparaguzation of landscape") or as a positive symbol of innovation and future is much more important than a lot of technical details. See the debate on paragraph further. Serten (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

New section in article Environmental impact of wind power contains several claims that are most surely made up[edit]

Hello! I want to point to a massive problem in the article Environmental impact of wind power. User:Serten wrote a new section about "cultural impact" which contains several claims that don't come from the sources he cites. I know his sources and I must say that I strongly believe that he deliberately made up these claims, because the authors didn't write something like that. There is also a lot of WP:OR and WP:Synthesis in his section. So I want to show that to you to join the talk page. I didn't remove the section in the article though, because I don't want to be banned because of edit-waring (I removed it once yesterday). Can somebody help me please? 84.170.152.169 (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The sources in question are e.g. UNESCO's Wind Turbine Problem: Mont-Saint-Michel's World Heritage Status Under Threat, Stefan Simons, Der Spiegel. The IP has still to discuss a valid move request Talk:Environmental_impact_of_wind_power#Move_Request_to_include_Cultural_Impact. The UNESCO rules AND the German Kulturlandschaft protection laws cover and protect valuable sights and views (and e.g. the wadden sea is either cultural and environmental heritage) as worded and sourced, and this -as worded and sourced in the article - has major implications on wind power planning. Thats a fact of life and no reason to come up with quite offensive claims. Serten (talk) 10:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
My accusation is not that your sources aren't citable. My accusation is that you fake the sources by writing claims in the article that are not backed by the sources you cite. So this example is completely ridiculous. Even the best sources are worthless if you write something that the sources cited by you don't. That is a manipulation of sources. 84.170.152.169 (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you deny that Conflicts between heritage status of certain areas and wind mill projects have arised in various countries, e.g. in case of the French island abbey of Mont-Saint-Michel? Do you deny that the heritage status of the wadden sea makes offshore wind power in German territorial waters neaerly impossible? Do you deny that the heritage status of the hambach castle wont allow - according the officially stated green red local government policy - any windmill in its neighborhood? Do you deny that this is a part of the environmental impact of wind mills? You seem to be on a quite specific mission. Serten (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
While a notification about a content dispute on an article related to renewable energy is pertinent, you shouldn't be discussing specific matters here, but on the article's talk page. @Serten, your whole paragraph above is not constructive as you surely understand that the issue is not with the cherrypicked examples on their own but due weight and overall POV, which you admitted to here. Also remember that WP:CIVIL applies to everyone.--ELEKHHT 23:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Answer is given on the article page. EOD here Serten (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI, this behaviour is NOT a new problem. --Hg6996 (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)