Template talk:Sustainable energy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This template is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Environment (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Energy (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Doesn't nuclear fusion count as sustainable?[edit]

If they ever figure out how to make it work I believe there's enough fuel in the oceans to power the world for millennia without draining them even a millimeter. Not sure if there's enough lithium though, lithium deuteride is used in some fusion. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It used to be continually 30 years away, but now LANL's best estimates say 2050 is the earliest a commercial fusion reactor can be expected. Check back then. —Cupco 13:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


Is there any peer reviewed secondary literature supporting the contention that biofuel is truly sustainable? In many cases it has a greater carbon footprint than petroleum, because of the fact that high-carbon croplands lay fallow for most of the non-growing seasons when they would otherwise be forest or scrub, and because of the fossil fuels used in agriculture for tractors/harvesters and fertilizers. —Cupco 13:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The peer reviewed literature reviews [1] indicates that essentially all biofuels are not actually sustainable when measured in terms of net energy balance, and [2] indicates that biodiesel in particular, while the most developed of the biofuels, is neither sustainable nor economically viable at present. Therefore, I am replacing the link to Biofuel with Carbon neutral fuel. —Cupco 17:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


Hello, I see that there are various ideas regarding formatting of this template. May I suggest that those perspectives be discussed here? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I've just melded the two previous versions to produce the current version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Sustainable_energy&oldid=539314214) which I hope satisfies (1) the desire for continuous lists (accessibility), while retaining (2) the tidier aligned portal links and (3) a thinner (18.0em) overall width for the sake of smaller screens/windows/resolutions. Hopefully acceptable to all..? CsDix (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    I've spoken elsewhere on 1 and 3. 2 I have issue with but I don't care to make an effort on the point. --Izno (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
    I suppose I have such an issue with hanging dots in vertical templates because they seem to me to go so directly against the nature of these templates. A hanging dot is evidence of a horizontal process that's had to linewrap – which is fine when it happens relatively occasionally, as in horizontally-aligned templates such as Navboxes, but just distracts attention (consciously or subconsciously) when, in a vertical template, it happens after every other item or so (and too often, sometimes, after only one item per line – !). In this vertical context, I suggest they're simply poor design that overlooks the psychology of how information is read. But I guess not enough people have noticed or are bothered by this, otherwise I suppose it would've been handled by now. CsDix (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I too find the hanging dots irritating. Is there any guidance from MOS about this or any particular reason to keep them? Since we know exactly how the line breaks will occur, why not insert the line breaks and remove the hanging dots? That's what I usually see in the other sidebars. 06:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • One option is to use the 'bodyclass=plainlist' parameter, instead of the 'contentclass = hlist' parameter. For an example, see Template:Guideline list. For guidelines, see: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Navigation templates and Wikipedia:Navigation templates. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks for those useful pointers. Wouldn't using "[...]class = plainlist" here imply only one link per line, though – otherwise something involving dots and/or hlist would need introduction / handling..? CsDix (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
    There is also the Template:Flatlist option, as used in Template:EnvironmentalTopics. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, I think Template:Flatlist and its like are what Izno isn't keen on (at least, not in vertical templates – if I've understood correctly). CsDix (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
    Hmm? No. Flatlist is just hlist in a different way.
    The only solution for the "hanging dots", if you can call it a solution, is to use a normal list or to use a plainlist. There's not a middle ground on the point. --Izno (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't believe that to be the case. There must be a routine somewhere that handles the linewrapping in templates and so should be able to be given an option such as this: if the last character before a linewrap is a dot, make that character (the dot) invisible. CsDix (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

part of a series on[edit]

Which do you think is better:
1. "Part of a series on" or
2. "Part of a series about"
I think "Part of a series about" is more clear but feel free to change back if you have a good reason. Brian Everlasting (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)