Talk:Energy development/Archive 2

Format

This pro/con format is nothing but a list, and needs to be converted into prose. Sure you can describe the benefits in one paragraph, and the disadvantages in another, but you certainly do not need to, nor should label them. What they are is obvious enough. This article has degenerated greatly in the last year. 199.125.109.80 (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrites needed

Insolation is on the order of 10^17 watts. There's not even 10^10 of humans. Unless we each and every one start using energy like a steelworks, the waste heat is many orders of magnitude smaller than sunshine; let's not write silly things like "geothermal heat will cause global climate change". Lots of gassy prose in the article as well; encyclopedias need to be *concise* otherwise no-one will ever plough through to the end of the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

entropy

Should this article include speculation on systems that use entropy as a source of power? Since entropy always increases it seems like the most long term solution we could hope for, and deserves mention.74.128.56.194 (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful!

The article says "Wind, water, and solar power using current technology can supply all of the world's energy by 2030, and has the advantage that consumption is reduced by 30%." I am doubtful about this statement, whether factually, or as a possible prediction for 17 years in the future. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yep. took that out and removed tag. your other tag remains. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lede

lede formerly said

Energy development' is the energy to provide sufficient primary energy sources and secondary energy forms for supply, cost, impact on air pollution and water pollution, mitigation of climate change with renewable energy.

In my mind, the lede, and the lack of a section on hydrocarbon development, is what led to the tag that the article is one sided. As stated, it appeared that the only reason for energy development is for environmental purposes. This is indeed biased, and it not true. I changed lede to:

Energy development is a field of endeavor focused on making available new sources of primary energy and secondary energy forms. Since energy is a primary commodity that drives much of the world's economy, steady and growing supply is essential and market forces (which can be mitigated by government support) determine what is feasible and what is not.

This is accurate (although the "and growing" is debateable.... it is not clear in the near term of conservation alone can deal with rapidly escalating energy needs of the BRIC countries, for example) and balanced. The chart in the article shows how the price of energy determines when new sources are brought online - cost does drive feasibility.

Coastwise, with an edit saying: "Removing bias from the new introductory paragraph" changed this to:

Energy development is a field of endeavor focused on making available sufficient primary energy sources and secondary energy forms to meet the needs of society. These endeavors encompass those which provide for the production of conventional and alternative sources of energy, and for the recovery and reuse of energy that would otherwise be wasted. Energy conservation and efficiency measures reduce the need for energy development, and can often have the same benefit to society at a lower cost and with lower environmental impact.

To me this adds argument to the lede and also, brings up the issue that the current section on "Increased energy efficiency" doesn't tie to the theme of the article. Fixing that now. But let's discuss! Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think it is OK.Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, good fix in the efficiency section. When I rewrote the lede I picked up on that issue too, but hadn't figured how to handle that. My apology on saying bias; it just seemed that the lede didn't encapsulate the article's content sufficiently and I was a bit hasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastwise (talk • contribs) 04:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does not include all significant viewpoints?

Please bullet list examples and perspective to improve the article. --J. D. Redding 13:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate of wind and solar power growth?

@Johnfos: I am concerned that this edit deleted some important facts. I like File:Energy-trends.png and hope it can help address this issue. Which articles do you think it can be best used to illustrate? Tim AFS (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, The source of the Energy trends image is BP, so it would probably be best located in BP-related articles. For a general energy article like this the best sources are authoritative ones like the International Energy Agency and IPCC... Johnfos (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Have expanded the opening RE paragraph somewhat to provide a better overview, and the key stats appear in sections below... Johnfos (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Section removed?

Cost by conventional reserve

Cost by source

Chart does not include the external costs of using fossil fuels.
For definition of price of oil per barrel (bbl), see: Oil barrel and Barrel of oil equivalent.
Cost estimations as of 2008-12-22; See Cost estimate for general details.

█ Conventional oil	█ Unconventional oil	█ Biofuels	█ Coal	█ Nuclear	█ Wind
Colored vertical lines indicate various historical oil prices. From left to right:
— 1990s average	— January 2009	— 1979 peak	— 2008 peak

Price of oil per barrel (bbl) at which energy sources are competitive.

Right end of bar is viability without subsidy.
Left end of bar requires regulation or government subsidies.
Wider bars indicate uncertainty.

Based on': Cambridge Energy Research Associates, IHS Herold, International Energy Agency, Wood Mackenzie and industry estimates.

For current data on coal, petroleum, natural gas, electric, renewable and nuclear energy,
see: Energy Information Administration. (Short-Term Outlook; Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update )

Large energy subsidies are present in many countries (Barker et al., 2001:567-568).^[1] Currently governments subsidize fossil fuels by $557 billion per year.^[2]^[3] Economic theory indicates that the optimal policy would be to remove coal mining and burning subsidies and replace them with optimal taxes. Global studies indicate that even without introducing taxes, subsidy and trade barrier removal at a sectoral level would improve efficiency and reduce environmental damage. Removal of these subsidies would substantially reduce GHG emissions and stimulate economic growth.

Further information: Energy commodity market

Should be reinstated --J. D. Redding 16:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Energy development diff

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_development&diff=601773390&oldid=590173048

Seems as if lots of information was removed here. --J. D. Redding 13:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will development lead ultimately to renewables?

Today, 6/10/14, Moneywatch online reported that Warren Buffet plans to double his $15 Billion investment in renewables: ^[4] Has anyone charted how much needs to be invested in renewables to ultimately displace all carbon based energy production? Globally? By country? If investors like Buffett and governments like China were to double their investments in renewables every couple of years, and this became a proven investment strategy, how long before countries like China become free of coal burning electric plants? It might become a worthwhile goal... -JessPatrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by JessPatrick (talk • contribs) 19:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29310475 (rockefeller brothers foundation withdrawing all their investments from fossil fuel sectors) So, yes, I think the global move is gearing towards renewable energy. Perhaps we can mention it in the article ?

109.130.207.138 (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wtshymanski slaughtered the article

Wtshymanski slaughtered the article --J. D. Redding 00:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ Barker, T.; et al. (2001). "Sectoral Costs and Ancillary Benefits of Mitigation. In: Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, et al., Eds.]". Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y., U.S.A. Retrieved 2010-01-10. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
^ Cite error: The named reference sciencedaily1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Bloomberg New Energy Finance (July, 2010) "Fossil Fuel Subsidies Outpace Renewables " RenewableEnergyWorld.com
^ http://blogs.marketwatch.com/energy-ticker/2014/06/10/buffett-to-double-his-15-billion-solar-wind-investments/?mod=MW_home_latest_news

[barker-1] Barker, T.; et al. (2001). "Sectoral Costs and Ancillary Benefits of Mitigation. In: Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, et al., Eds.]". Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y., U.S.A. Retrieved 2010-01-10. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)

[sciencedaily1-2] Cite error: The named reference sciencedaily1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[3] Bloomberg New Energy Finance (July, 2010) "Fossil Fuel Subsidies Outpace Renewables " RenewableEnergyWorld.com

[4] ttp://blogs.marketwatch.com/energy-ticker/2014/06/10/buffett-to-double-his-15-billion-solar-wind-investments/?mod=MW_home_latest_news

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]