|WikiProject Environment||(Rated Start-class)|
I do see a good argument being discussed to merge Cleantech and Clean Technology. There appears to be a different converstation betweent the two. One is about the actual technology (Clean Technology) and the other is about the financial aspects of the space, that is well known as the cleantech space. I don't see any attempt at discussion, only an attempt to merge the two and as I've been monitoring this, it appears that either members of or friends of the Clean Edge group are trying to eliminate some of the dialogue here. That's not the spirit of Wikipedia. Please start the discussion and stop trying to unamimously trash the Cleantech page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Green vs Renewable
For the uninformed these two are used interchangably however Renewable energy at the moment includes burning firewood as fuel (13% of world energy use). So big question is whether renewable energy is really Clean technology, and if not why is it referenced here?? Jagra (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Cleantech vs Clean Technology
Don't merge the two. Cleantech is a sector which has a clear identity, as seen by existence of bodies such as the CleanTech Group. See also the related Wikipedia entry under 'Cleantech Revolution'. As a cleantech professional, I always use the term 'cleantech', not 'clean technology'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Clean technology is the subject and cleantech is merely an abbreviation. One (preferably Cleantech) should be mnerged, no need for both.[[User:Bill at canbyte.com] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike at Canbyte (talk • contribs) 15:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no discernable difference between clean tech and clean technology. Having two different pages and definitions simply spreads confusion. Regarding the point about financials above, don't believe this is correct. Either clean tech or clean technology can have a financial dimension - i.e. how to invest in this market sector. Let's merge them and reduce confusion...at least until someone has a clear and articulate definition for each term. FarazQ (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- I support the merge. Can't see why we should have two separate articles on this. Splette :) How's my driving? 16:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to participate in cleaning up the relevant sections. I've done a bit of reviewing of the related entries and there is plenty of overlap and general format weakness. I'll propose some changes that can incorporate the subject matter, and see what feedback I get... Fellowellmet (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't merge!!! Cleantech is and should remain a financial jargon about an investment space. My view is based on me being actively involved with development of Clean Technology and also in dealing with finance companies that invest in this space. SteinerPDP —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC).
Merge! Cleantech is the specific financial jargon for the clean technologies sector so surely this should therefore be dealt with as a section in the clean technologies page? They are, ultimately, synonyms and therefore having separate pages is unhelpful.
Use Hydrogen as a form of a portable clean technology fuel?
If hydrogen is used as a fuel source, it's clean. Due to the fact that burned exhaust gases are actually just water vaper.
Some may argue that the production of hydrogen itself is not clean, my response is simply use electrolysis to extract hydrogen gas from water. The following argument is that the production of the electricity for the electrolysis process is in fact not clean, due to the majority of electrical power produced at this time comes from coal. However in reality the electrical power used can come from clean energy sources such as wind/solar/hydro, etc. Done. presto, clean portable low weight fuel.
Some may further argue, "WHAT ABOUT THE HINDENBURG!" well there is two things that come to mind. One, hydrogen can be pretty powerful, and thus useful as a fuel. Two, no car, truck or van I can think of would actually carry around a fuel tank the size of the Hindenburg. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)