Talk:Renewable energy commercialization/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

GA Hold

A few minor issues:

MOS issue: The title of the article should appear in the lead bolded, preferably in the first sentance, and doubly-preferably as the first words of the article. This needs fixing.
A few stats have unclear sources, especially in places where specific powerplants power ratings are quoted:
- "In many northern European countries, combined hot water and space heating systems (solar combisystems) are used to provide 15 to 25% of home heating energy (see Solar hot water article)." Contains a stat of unclear source; also while we are at it, don't put "see also" statements in the body. Use the template at the start of the section, such as {{details}} or {{see also}}...
- "Other large photovoltaic power stations, which have been proposed or are under construction, include: the Girrasol solar power plant (62 MW), Waldpolenz Solar Park (40 MW), and the Nellis Solar Power Plant (15 MW)." no source for stats.
- "Enercon, based in Aurich, Northern Germany, is the third-largest wind turbine manufacturer in the world and the market leader in Germany. As of April 2007 Enercon had installed 11,006 wind turbines, with an overall power of 11,703 GW. Their most-often installed model is the E-40 (the number indicates the rotor diameter in meters), which pioneered the gearbox-less design in 1992. Enercon has production facilities in Germany, Sweden, Brazil, India and Turkey." No reference, makes challengable superlative claims (third largest? market leader? according to whom? needs ref)
As an aside, based on the prior note, be VERY careful about the section on leading companies. This section looks well referenced now, but it could easily be open to abuse. Not really a GA issue, but just something to watch out for.

Fix that one MOS issue and find those references, and this article will be promoted as a GA. The hold will expire in 1 week; if the changes are not made it will have to fail (which would be a shame, since it is very close to passing)... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing. I have made improvements as per your suggestions. Please see what you think. -- Johnfos 04:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I will add the article to the GA list now. Consider taking this to peer review if you are preparing to eventually bring the article to FA status. I can tell you that the writing will need some work in places to raise it from GA to FA status, but this article is a VERY good start towards becoming an FA. Good Job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit help...

The article does look much improved from even the last time I saw it. This is becoming a good article. A user on my talk page left a request to copyedit this article. Unfortunately, as far as writing goes I am really a diner and not a chef; I know when my food tastes bad but I couldn't cook it better myself. I will contact Awadewit, one of the better copyeditors here at Wikipedia and someone who has done wonders for my articles. She may also appreciate if the editors of this article contact her directly. She is often quite busy, but also does some requests. You can also try to post the article for review from the League of Copyeditors who are quite good. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked to copy edit this article, so I'm starting to do so. Please alert me to any mistakes that I introduce into the article, so I don't make the same mistake in the future. I will leave internal questions and comments inside the article at times when I don't understand something. These are best viewed with wikEd or some other program that color codes edit types. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 06:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Copy editing questions and other comments

Renewable energy commercialization involves a broad, diverse array of technologies, including solar photovoltaics, solar thermal power plants, solar heating and cooling systems, wind power, hydroelectricity, geothermal, biomass, and ocean energy systems. - It seems to me that this sentence is missing something. It makes more sense without the word "commercialization" but the page is supposed to be about "renewable energy commercialization" specifically, so perhaps another phrase could be added? Awadewit | talk 06:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Awadewit, have revised the lead in the light of your comments. Hope it is an improvement. Johnfos 03:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this page in AE or BE? "commercialization" led me to think AE, but then I saw "programme".... Awadewit | talk 08:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

AE it is. I'll fix this up in a few days. Awadewit | talk 06:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that a clearer distinction needs to be drawn between PV cells and solar thermal energy. It is not clear to me right now exactly what that distinction might be. Awadewit | talk 05:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Have added some clarification in the photovoltaics section. Johnfos 10:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the list of companies is necessary. It looks like an advertisement right now. Why not just mention them when discussing which products they produce in the previous sections? Or perhaps a small list of links entitled "Leading renewable energy companies" at the end of the article? Awadewit | talk 05:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Commercialization of renewables involves both the private sector and the public sector, and I've tried to discuss both in this article. I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of giving these companies less space, as I think the article would become unbalanced. Johnfos 08:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, more could be added to each company's section (one- and two-line sections are discouraged). A fuller explanation would itself make an argument for the sections' inclusion. Awadewit | talk 05:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will work towards that. Johnfos 05:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the "Non-technical barriers to acceptance" section is based on a US source. Since energy is a world-wide thing, shouldn't we have a more diversified source pool? Awadewit | talk 06:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Have located a UN source and added it. Johnfos 10:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

With such a wide range of non-technical barriers, there is no silver bullet solution to drive the transition to renewable energy. So there is a need for several different types of policy instruments to overcome different types of barriers and complement each other. - Is this too POV for the article? Awadewit | talk 06:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not unusual in the literature on technological change to talk about "no silver bullet solution", but have softened the wording a little. Johnfos 10:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

But surely there are critics of this kind of technology and its commercialization? My point is that this kind of language is not very neutral and it does not really concede the existence of other viewpoints. Awadewit | talk 10:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I probably haven't made myself clear here... To say that renewable energy is not a silver bullet is to concede the point that other technologies also have an important role to play. So I see this perspective as actually accomodating the views of any critics. Johnfos 11:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Public policy has a role to play because the free market system has some fundamental limitations. - Has a role to play in what? Awadewit | talk 06:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Have clarified this. Johnfos 11:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph of "Shifting subsidies" feels POV to me. Awadewit | talk 06:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a particular sentence that is a problem? Johnfos 11:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It is really that entire paragraph. If you don't think so, feel free to solicit other opinions. Such things are very subjective, I know. Awadewit | talk 01:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added this sentence, which I think provides some useful context: "The Stern Review explains that of 20 key innovations from the past 30 years, only one of the 14 they could source was funded entirely by the private sector and nine were totally funded by the public sector.[57]" Johnfos 21:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

While some leading industrial countries have been reducing subsidies to fossil fuels, most notably coal, the United States has been increasing its support for the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. - "increasing support" is vague - do you have any numbers for this as you do in the previous paragraphs? Awadewit | talk 06:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No numbers as yet, but will keep working on it.Johnfos 11:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph of "Investment trends" is too vague - what governments? what sectors? what regions? The entire section feels a bit stubby, like it's missing information. Awadewit | talk 06:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Investment trends section needs to be expanded. Is there anyone else who would care to help with this? Johnfos 00:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to go for FAC eventually, you will need to format your footnotes according to the WP:MOS. There is not enough information there right now. Awadewit | talk 06:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy for the article to stay at GA level, but if a keen editor (who is good with reference formatting) wants to take the article further, that's fine too. Johnfos 00:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, Awadewit, for your helpful comments and questions. They have helped me get enthusiastic about the article again and have resulted in considerable improvements. Johnfos 11:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

How about some info on things that are on the horizon...

Such as biogasoline and algae fuel... I'm sure there are probably others. These may be in the pre to post (or in the midst of the beginning) beginning stages of commercialization. Emesee (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-engineering the grid: challenges

Fleeting and superficial reference to a major hurdle: "and it may be difficult to integrate wind power into electricity grids in some cases". Citation inadequate for this.

Anyone care to address this? Tony (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Free energy

The box User:Reddi is inserting is unsourced, dubious, an NPOV violation, and, although this is not completely relevant, clearly false. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Biofuel company redlinks are filled in

I have just completed creating new entries for the four redlinked biofuel companies cited in the article: BlueFire Ethanol, Gulf Coast Energy, Mascoma and POET LLC. The article looks better without redlinks, and Wikipedia's coverage of U.S. ethanol companies has been expanded, too! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Very good work, Eco. Thank you! Johnfos (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Solar thermal definitely second-generation

By the definition in this article: "Second-generation technologies ... are now entering markets as a result of research, development and demonstration (RD&D) investments since the 1980s. Initial investment was prompted by energy security concerns linked to the oil crises of the 1970s but the enduring appeal of these technologies is due, at least in part, to environmental benefits. Many of the technologies reflect significant advancements in materials.[2]"

first large-scale solar plant was constructed in 1912, so it's not totally new see Science.
renewed interest arose in the 1970s and led to the construction of the SEGS plants, still some of the largest single-site renewable power stations in the world.
perhaps low-reflection coatings and thermal expansion seals are an aspect of modern engineering/materials; i don't see how this belongs in third generation, if we are talking about technological development.
many new large-scale solar power stations are now being constructed (PS-10, Andasol I, Nevada Solar One, Ausra, etc) and the technology is definitely emerging out of the R&D phase. Jdpipe (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to make this change, if no one objects. Johnfos (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Johnfos (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Small questions and comments

I like this article - in addition to some updates on the split between geothermal and EGS and wind power stats I already made, I have some small questions that popped up while I was reading it:

The article seems too much focused on the US, especially wrt examples used (for example: mention of the Reinvestment Act, mentioning examples of US wind parks rather then global, or mentioning only US Ethanol plants. The remainder of the article does a good job of taking a global perspective, but perhaps these examples / tables should be updated or left out?
With the speed of current developments, the mentioning of leading companies is very easily outdated. For example, FirstSolar is now almost 2x as large as Q-cell, and Vestas has a 20% market share, not 28%. Of course, it is possible to continuously update these paragraphs, but to avoid a lot of double work, another suggestion would be to link to the primary articles on wind power and solar power, and keep these pages as recent as possible.
The use of "three generations of technologies" is confusing, because there are other uses of "generations", for example in biodiesel technologies, and nuclear technologies. The article now mostly builds on one definition from the IEA, but would it be fair to mention other uses? GNOJED3891 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. On your first point, I've made a few recent edits which remove some US material, and I think your recent edits have helped to bring in a more global perspective too. On the second point, I'm happy to keep the article updated as I think the "leading companies" info is central to the article, but I have found it difficult to get recent sources. What source do you have that says that: "FirstSolar is now almost 2x as large as Q-cell, and Vestas has a 20% market share, not 28%"? On the third point, I think it would actually be confusing to bring in material discussing generations of other technologies. Johnfos (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you reply and edits. The most recent data (consulting / broker reports) is not public unfortunately, but the numbers can also be found here ^[1]^[2] The last source is 3/4 historical data and 1/4 projections, yet the changes in market shares are so significant that this is relevant enough to include in the article. GNOJED3891 (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

^ Keith Johnson, Wind Shear: GE Wins, Vestas Loses in Wind-Power Market Race, Wall Street Journal, March 25th 2009, accessed on January 7th 2010.
^ Mark Osborne, First Solar’s market share set to soar, PV-Tech.org, September 7th 2009, accessed on January 7th 2010.

Thanks for tidying up after me! Nice references... Johnfos (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Access dates

Why did you remove all the "Retrieved on XXX" access dates in the references on Renewable energy commercialization?
—WWoods (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of the citations had no access dates and it seemed reasonable to remove old access dates from the few that did, for the sake of consistency. But I have no objections to being reverted, or even better, to someone going through and comprehensively adding updated access dates. Johnfos (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Economic trends

This section is filled with the following:

All forms of energy are expensive, but as time progresses, renewable energy generally gets cheaper,[22][23] while fossil fuels generally get more expensive. Al Gore has explained that renewable energy technologies are declining in price for three main reasons:[24]

A) First, once the renewable infrastructure is built, the fuel is free forever. Unlike carbon-based fuels, the wind and the sun and the earth itself provide fuel that is free, in amounts that are effectively limitless.

B) Second, while fossil fuel technologies are more mature, renewable energy technologies are being rapidly improved. So innovation and ingenuity give us the ability to constantly increase the efficiency of renewable energy and continually reduce its cost.

C) Third, once the world makes a clear commitment to shifting toward renewable energy, the volume of production will itself sharply reduce the cost of each windmill and each solar panel, while adding yet more incentives for additional research and development to further speed up the innovation process.[24]

Mentioning Al Gore as an authoritative source for anything science or engineering related will drive up the blood pressure of anyone with a science degree without a vested interest.

A) First portion is true (fuel is free from then on). The second portion (effectively limitless) is such that only an intelectually challanged person could make such a statement. The amount is effectively limited by our ability to extract the raw resources necessary for the required infrastructure and a miriad of other factors. Another issue is that the energy density of renewables efectively limits us anywhere we go.

B) Again, options more than facts. Yes, the technology is rapidly improving. This is however not a panacea, and is limited to the thermodynamic laws which hold and still apply. Thus technological hurdles and inability to surmount them are suppresed in an emotionally hyped up "buy my shares now" type speech. This fails to mention that many current gen solar panels are EROEI negative, and their production processes produce voluminous amounts of highly toxic waste. There are similar technological externalities to the so called "green technologies", but they are not being discussed. This is Gore's political position. What is politics doing in this section? it is supposed to be about commercialization of green technologies, not discussing the publicly voiced opinions of a politician which is engaged in funneling public funds to economically uncompetitive technologies (that are supposedly green) and recieving a portion of spent public funds back from invovled companies.

C) Ties in to my oposition to point B) - if those technologies are not EROEI positive, or they require large amounts of fossil fuel to build the infrastructure (metals are extracted using FF - steel, magnesium, cement for concrete and others...). The attempt to mix the political and the economic here is simmilar to the unfortunate effect of state interference in mining and other areas with subsidies on things that are not clearly profitable for the sake of maintaining political stability. For example the use of fresh water/brine interface powerplants using fuel cells is overlooked, for highly inefficient and expensive to manufacture solar cells that are subsidised in favor of by the CGA (central govermental authority) of different states.

I therefore propose that this entire section be moved to the topic "Al Gore" or "Green politics" which are more suited to this opinionated and unscientific personal views of an idividual that has started his university degree as an English Major, shifted to Climate Science and ended majoring in Goverment. While he may be opinionated passionate and whatnot, I strongly disagree with his views being used, as it strongly undermines the neutrality of the article in relation to the discussed topic. Unless of course, it is taken as a warning and a subsection labeled "green politics" is developed which will contain the list of people and their views on said subject.

Jan Kukla, on 17th of June, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.39.76.215 (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

EROEI negative = Energy Returned On Energy Invested. MaynardClark (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

History back to 1970

Should we not start from 1970 ? Almost 400 MW of solar power was in production well before 2000.--Robertiki (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you document this better before we think about incorporating your notes into the article? MaynardClark (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem: Solar Energy Generating Systems. Ronald Reagan and Bush Senior killed the initiative (Carter ?), otherwise ... And it is not only electricity, but the development of the first Evacuated tube collectors] (1986). I have to find my old notes, there was more. --Robertiki (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

And NREL was born as Solar Energy Research Institute in 1974. --Robertiki (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

And geothermal sources searching started in the '70s, followed by commercial power development in the 1980s. --Robertiki (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Some thoughts: [1]

"In June or July of 1981, on the bleakest day of my professional life, they descended on the Solar Energy Research Institute, fired about half of our staff and all of our contractors, including two people who went on to win Nobel prizes in other fields, and reduced our $130 million budget by $100 million," recalls Denis Hayes, the founder of Earth Day, who had been hired by Carter to spearhead the solar initiative.

"The solar water heating industry instantly went from a billion-dollar industry to an industry that now installs, in the U.S., about 6,000 solar hot water heaters a year," said Noah Kaye, spokesman for the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Had Reagan not squashed it, the research that Carter started could have triggered a substantial shift to solar, wind power and other renewable forms of energy - possibly providing as much as 25 percent of the nation's electricity supply, says Hayes, the Carter solar expert.

--Robertiki (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Robertiki (talk) should have become the US President rather than Ronald Reagan. MaynardClark (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Why not Jimmy Carter ? --Robertiki (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Renewable energy commercialization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100918151714/http://awea.org/projects/Projects.aspx?s=Indiana to http://www.awea.org/projects/Projects.aspx?s=Indiana

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Renewable energy commercialization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071229033413/http://www.awea.org/projects/Projects.aspx?s=Texas to http://www.awea.org/projects/Projects.aspx?s=Texas

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV?

"With such a wide range of non-technical barriers, there is no "silver bullet" solution to drive the transition to renewable energy. So ideally there is a need for several different types of policy instruments to complement each other and overcome different types of barriers."

The use of the word "ideally" here seems rather problematic, and in general the article seems to be written in a decidedly "clean energy adoptionist" style. Furthermore, there's a section on non-technical barriers to implementation, which mentions barriers which are actually technical such as the way power networks are constructed, but there's no section which discusses the flaws of current renewables themselves. The entire article definitely seems to be deliberately painting an unrealistically-rosy picture. 96.234.137.123 (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Renewable energy commercialization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Renewable energy commercialization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Renewable energy commercialization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Renewable energy commercialization/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Couple of tags, the most recent added by Clayoquot. Definitely needs updating, most of the data is from 2015 or earlier. This is an area that is very current so there will be current information out there. It also talks about future targets that have now passed and should show a result, plus a recent developments section that is not recent anymore. As to the promotional tone I think this is probably easier to deal with. By its nature it is probably going to come across a bit promotional. There is some in the wind power section that could be toned down a bit. Also lacking references in the "Advanced solar concepts" section and a few other places. AIRcorn (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure worth keeping

Obviously it was relevant in 2007 when created but now that PV and wind have been commercialized I think this article should be deleted or merged into another, as I think nowadays commercialization of other renewable technologies would be better discussed in their individual articles. Being so out of date it is no longer a good article and not sure worth the effort of updating.Chidgk1 (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Status

@Aircorn: I noticed that this review is still open. After three months without improvement, I think it would be fair to delist it. Guettarda (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I took a break and then forgot about this. Will delist it now. AIRcorn (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Updating in 2020

What parts of this article are no longer relevant in 2020? What information might be more important than what is already included? How can this article be made less overwhelming to a casual reader? Lyrica2000 (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

[1] Keith Johnson, Wind Shear: GE Wins, Vestas Loses in Wind-Power Market Race, Wall Street Journal, March 25th 2009, accessed on January 7th 2010.

[2] Mark Osborne, First Solar’s market share set to soar, PV-Tech.org, September 7th 2009, accessed on January 7th 2010.

[1]

[2]