Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Aluminium battery

I'd like to take the future-product tag off of Aluminium battery. Can anyone find some peer-reviewed sources on aluminum cells? There are some good pointers in the history section of the external link. LossIsNotMore 19:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Energy portal

As it relates in part to the subject matter of this WikiProject, note that an energy portal now exists. Gralo 02:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Energy collaboration navigation box

I trust that you will excuse the sudden appearance of the "Wikipedians collaborating on energy related topics" navigation box on your project page. There are three organised wikiprojects and one disorganised freestanding energy portal which is developing well, and which I hope will be of interest to all three wikiprojects. I hope you will find that the navigation box helps to navigate between all these and, from my portal perspective, that that you might enjoy using the "post a news item" link from time-to-time! If you'd like to add the navigation box to your user page too, cut and paste the text {{EnergyCollaboration}} . Gralo 02:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Energy portal & future selected articles

Over the past couple of months I've been spending much more time than I should developing the Energy portal, and intend asking for a portal peer review within the next day or so.

The portal provides a showcase for energy-related articles on Wikipedia. One of the most prominent ways is via a the selected article that is currently changed every 6 weeks or so. It would be good to increase this turnover, and with three Wikiprojects dedicated to energy-related topics and a good number of articles already written, I'd like to suggest that each Wikiproject might like to use the 'selected article' to feature some of their best work.

With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that your Wikiproject bypasses the normal selected article nomination page and decides collectively which articles are worth featuring - or these may be self-evident from previous discussions - and add short 'introduction' to the selected article at the appropriate place on page Portal:Energy/Selected article/Drafts, which includes further information.

Please make any comments on this Wikiproject talk page, my talk page, or on Portal talk:Energy/Selected article/Drafts, as appropriate. Gralo 16:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Sustainable development Portal

I recently started The Sustainable development Portal and offered it up for portal peer review to help make it a feature portal down the road. Please feel free to to help improve the portal and/or offer your input at the portal peer review. Thanks. RichardF 02:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sustainable development Portal now is a Featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. RichardF 02:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A debate is going on at Talk:Energy about how the different articles on Energy in Wikipedia should relate to one another and what they should be called. Lumos3 09:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Energy portal - featured candidate

The energy portal is currently a featured portal candidate. You may wish to check over the portal for any undiscovered problems, or note your support (or opposition!) here. Gralo 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Energy templates

There was some controversy concerning image at the WikiProject Energy template. Right now there are three different templates with different images, which actually do the same thing:

The only difference of these templates is use of different images and it's possible to use the image, which is the most suitable for the article topic.Beagel 06:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Energy2 and Energy3 have been recommended for deletion at wp:TfD with general consensus that they be deleted as unnecessary duplication. 199.125.109.127 01:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The apparent inability of WikiProject Energy to decide which illustration to use for its project banner template is now cluttering up a lot of talk pages with an ugly triple-sized banner showing five - 5 photos. My suggestion is to make a composite image using several of the proposed pictures. I'm sure there's a WikiProject or something with the expertise to assist you in this if you need technical help. __meco 16:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's really crazy. I propose to revert to back the version with only one image and not change the template before solving this dispute. If accepted solution not found, the only way will be to restore deleted templates with different images and let use this template with has closest image to the article subject. This template with five images doesn't promote the WP Energy, but seems more like anti-promotion.Beagel 18:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. It's more like a cry of "stay clear of the lunatic bin!" __meco 21:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss images at the Template talk:WikiProject Energy.Beagel 08:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Expert review: Islanding

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Islanding is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 14:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this not a little too broad?

I've been working mostly on articles that deal with nuclear power, and it seems that tagging with the WPEnergy project has become insignificant. Could we sometime possible create a nuclear power or just a nuclear Wiki sub-project? There has been a lot of restructuring of articles in that area and a lot of smaller sort of projects. It just seems that a WPproject would be a really helpful thing for collaboration. Thanks. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 03:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I would not say this is too broad a project. If you want broad look at WP:TECHNOLOGY of which this is a subproject. I don't think an additional project is needed as Energy Development already narrows it down. Another subproject would just distract from the existing projects.--Jorfer 21:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but on the other end of the stick, we have things like Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Nuclear Enterprise. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Nuclear Enterprise is ridiculuous. We don't need to be creating similiar stuff just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is better to be too broad then too narrow (just look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Identify the best size). One is too broad and the other is too specific. This is just the right size.--Jorfer 03:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm not disagreeing with you, it was painful for me to slowly watch the demise of that Wikiproject as well. Anyway, I'm not even interested in Wikiproject task lists or other administrative things like that, where do you think is the appropriate place to ask questions that require collaboration across a LOT of articles pertaining to nuclear technology or nuclear energy? I think I've even bugged people in the nuclear technology portal talk page as well about this sort of thing, which I'm sure is wrong. The energy development project seems just as relevant/irrelevant as the energy project, but I'll take my issues there if you insist. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 15:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say find them where you can find them. Try to bring people into this wikiproject if you desire to collaborate along those lines instead of creating a whole new wikiproject. The "If you build it they will come" mentality does not necesarilly work on Wikipedia. Try collaborating on nuclear energy within this project and if there is enough interest I would say branch off.--Jorfer 21:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that nuclear energy fits very well within the scope of WPEnergy. --Skyemoor 16:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Expert review: Pressure extension

Is there any engineer here in the field of natural gas processing? As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Pressure extension is notable enough for an own article. The article is in a very bad state, nearly incomprehensible. It seems that the term "Pressure extension" is known in the engineering literature on natural gas, but I could not find an expert up to now. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 12:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Intermittent Power Sources and Energy demand management

At this time, IPS is rated as mid importance in WPEnergy; I believe it should be top (or at least high, as should Energy Demand Management. Natural gas supplies in North America are in decline, though the demand is increasing for Tar Sand => petroleum processing, fertilizer production, and winter heating, hence NatGas is becoming less available for peaking power. And just as importantly, almost all renewable sources of energy are are intermittent in some way, from wind, solar, and tidal especially. Understanding how to manage many diverse sources of generation while having flexible measures to manage demand will be vital as nations choose (GHG emissions) or are forced (supply limitations) to become less reliant on natural gas and more reliant on renewable energy. How is the importance rating established and updated? --Skyemoor 16:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Every participant of the WP Energy may assess and update ratings.Beagel 17:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (resolved)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I made the front page again!

With Greifswald Nuclear Power Plant. Huzzah! -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 07:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey hey

Hello energetic Wikipedians. I am about to post a peer review for Byron Nuclear Generating Station at WP:PR. I thought I would notify folks here because the coverage of U.S. nuclear power stations on Wikipedia is woefully inadequate and this article, which was just expanded, is really the first attempt on Wikipedia to cover nuclear power stations in the Unites States in any kind of encyclopedic and detailed manner. My main concern is about any missing data, any technical information or data that an expert would be appalled at seeing missing. The article was written by a non-expert with some background in chemistry and nuclear power through the military and through university. Any opinions would be appreciated. Just go to the following link to comment: Wikipedia:Peer review/Byron Nuclear Generating Station/archive1. : ) Thanks ahead of time. IvoShandor 23:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fuel article

We at WP:1.0 have just made the Fuel article our Core Topics Collaboration. This collaboration hasn't been too lively of late, but I think you'd agree that this article (assessed as Start, but only just!) is in a shocking state for such a major topic. In fact, it is one of only four major topics that we excluded from our April CD release, because it was just too embarrassing. If some knowledgeable people from this project could help expand the article, we'd really appreciate it! Thanks, Walkerma 02:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggest to add notice also to Portal_talk:Energy.Beagel 05:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Supermajor / Seven Sisters Merge

Made a comment to the merge of the above some time ago under Talk:Seven Sisters (oil companies) and seems like interest faded after that without resolution. Can someone take a look and give an opinion? I don't mind if I'm on the losing end, but just interested if someone active on the project had any thoughts. Jawsdog 21:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Cost avoidance

Cost avoidance (via WP:PROD)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oil shale

Oil shale is a Good Article candidate now. Your comments are most welcome.Beagel 10:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Tectonic power

Tectonic power (via WP:PROD)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

By country energy topics

Hey, i put some work into making the Template:Nuclear power by country and I just thought that we should have others, like Template:Renewable energy by country, but then I thought that we should probably just combine them all and have some Template:Energy sources by country. But anyway, if someone is feeling ambitious, you should totally make it. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 20:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that merging them all into the renewable template is the best thing for now so I went ahead and did that.--Jorfer 21:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 22:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Not. Nuclear power is not renewable. The template was too big anyway. This has been discussed before. 199.125.109.134 05:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

I would like for someone to comment on the current discussion. We made a lot of progress with this before, but that progress has stopped now, but all we need are some opinions. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 04:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Energy articles

It seems like almost all wikiprojects categorize the talk pages of articles, rather than the articles themselves, presumable to seperate the 'front end' (for readers) and 'back end' (for contriburs) of Wikipedia. However, in Category:WikiProject Energy articles many article pages are present. I was wondering if this is something that should be changed. I also asked this question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories#Category:WikiProject_Energy_articles. Arthena(talk) 18:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason for this is to keep track of all the pages that simply have a "front page" template and not a "back page" one. An energy stub for example might not have the banner on the talk page, but we still want to categorize it as part of the project.--Jorfer 18:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
If this is really important then one should just go ahead and add a banner to the talk page. IMO Wikipedia:Categorization#Wikipedia namespace is quite clear on this matter, it's not appropriate to be putting housekeeping categories on article pages like this. Bryan Derksen 10:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 20:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oil shale extraction

Oil shale extraction is a Good Article candidate now. Your comments are most welcome.Beagel (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Mining

Is energy substrate acquisition (ie coal mining, oil drilling, etc.) contained in this project?D-rew (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In general, it is. However, there is also proposal for special WP Mining (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Mining).Beagel (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Coal by country articles

At first I didn't think this would go anywhere or be very interesting to write about. But then discovered just how much mass bloodshed there is to talk about for Coal power in China. I think people should definitely have a look at this one because I would like to take it a lot further.

Seriously, it's probably the most bloody topic within the scope of Wikiproject Energy. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 08:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What's so bloody about it? vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 09:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The number of people that have died as a result of it is staggering. That's all I'm saying. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 04:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Greenspun illustration project: requests now open

Dear Wikimedians,

This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).

The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests

If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.

The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.

thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)

Help, please...

I'm looking for designs for hot climates. I'm living in a desert where

  • heat and sun rays are becoming perceptibly stronger,
  • humidity is rising steadily,
  • cooling by water-evaporation (Desert Coolers) no longer works, and
  • energy costs are becoming prohibitively expensive.

In particular I'm looking for designs or ideas that can be easily grafted onto an existing building with a minimum of resources, expense and technical skills or professional knowledge (no architect or cement mixer). For example: in summer many houses in our area cover sun facing walls/roofs with black, blue or green shade netting used in agriculture.

Please point me in the right direction. Thank you, Shir-El too 10:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I used to live in New Mexico. Trombe walls worked there to capture the sun during the day and re-radiate it during the night when it gets cold. It was not so humid that Swamp coolers still worked. I knew several people that had a Solar chimney in their home. It sounds like your climate is a lot like Phoenix, AZ where things are getting more humid due to irrigation. Kgrr (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

New sections of the Energy Portal

I created new sections of the Energy Portal for new articles (found by bot) and for announcements (nominations for good and featured articles, peer and expert reviews, deletion and merging discussions etc). I would like to ask to add all relevant information also there (in addition to the normal procedure, of course). You are also welcome to share your thoughts how to improve and further update this portal. Beagel (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Biofuel balance

Is there any place in the Energy Project to add some realistic balance to the topic of biofuel from food? Such as:

Non-scalable, unsustainable ethanol issues

In 2007, biofuels consumed one third of America's corn (maize) harvest. Filling up one U.S. SUV fuel tank one time with ethanol uses enough corn to feed one person for a year. 30m tonnes of U.S. corn going to ethanol in 2007 greatly reduced the world's overall supply of grain.[1]

Jean Ziegler (United Nations expert on the Right To Food) called for a five-year moratorium on biofuel production to halt the increasing catastrophe for the poor. He proclaimed that the rising practice of converting food crops into biofuel is "A Crime Against Humanity," saying it is creating food shortages and price jumps that cause millions of poor people to go hungry.[2]

The European Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development warns that “the current push to expand the use of biofuels is creating unsustainable tensions that will disrupt markets without generating significant environmental benefits.”[3]

When all 200 American ethanol subsidies are considered, they cost about $7 billion USD per year (equal to roughly $1.90 USD total for each a gallon of ethanol). When the price of one agricultural commodity increases, farmers are motivated to quickly shift finite land and water resources to it, away from traditional food crops.[4]

The 2007-12-19 U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires American “fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. This is nearly a fivefold increase over current levels.”[5]

When cellulosic ethanol is produced from feedstock like switchgrass and sawgrass, the nutrients required to grow the cellulose are removed and cannot decay and replenish the soil. The soil is of poorer quality, and unsustainable soil erosion occurs.

Sugar cane ethanol works in Brazil because they have an equatorial year-round growing season, and the Amazon River – world’s largest fresh water supply. Locations with snow on the ground part of the year, short growing seasons, and limited fresh water supplies are less effective. Growing crops like thirsty genetically-engineered corn can require significant irrigation.

Ethanol production consumes large quantities of unsustainable petroleum and natural gas. Even with the most-optimistic energy return on investment claims, in order to use 100% solar energy to grow corn and produce ethanol (fueling farm-and-transportation machinery with ethanol, distilling with heat from burning crop residues, using NO fossil fuels), the consumption of ethanol to replace current U.S. petroleum use alone would require about 75% of all cultivated land on the face of the Earth, with no ethanol for other countries, or sufficient food for humans and animals.[6]

Why are (apparently biased) Wikipedia energy editors deleting this type of well-cited material with no explanation? (A little help please) -Escientist 15:45, 10 January 2008 NA EST (UTC -5)

These are sourced and a valid concern and should not be deleted. Their removal should have been reverted. Their deletion is, imo, a violation of the neutral point of view ideal. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 23:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oil tanker GA run?

]I've been banging hard on Oil tanker and am considering trying to get it up to GA status. Any assistance with critiques, copyediting and so forth would be appreciated. My current to-do list is on the talk page. Cheers. HausTalk 08:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Assessment of the Domestic AC power plugs and sockets and Nuclear fusion articles

Domestic AC power plugs and sockets and Nuclear fusion are both currently rated A class but both are quite poorly referenced. I think that they are worth to be nominated to be FAC, if better referenced. However, without additional references they should be downgraded to the B-class. Please help with adding missing references.Beagel (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Userbox template?

I don't see a userbox template for WikiProject Energy. Presumably it would be in Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy#Project templates. Before I create one, I'm asking if anybody knows of one that is hiding somewhere. --Teratornis (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a start, {{User energy}}. Please modify it as you see fit. Cheers. HausTalk 19:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
This user is a participant in
WikiProject Energy.
Excellent. I'm looking on Wikipedia:Userboxes/WikiProjects#Science and engineering, and most of the other entries there have "WikiProject" in their names. Thus I am moving the template to {{User WikiProject Energy}} to be more like the others. I'm also categorizing it in Category:WikiProject user templates, and (I suppose) Category:Energy templates (although I'm not sure whether userboxes belong in there). --Teratornis (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
There are also userbox tmplates for the sister project—Energy Portal
This user is plugged into the Energy Portal.
This user is plugged into the Energy Portal.
This user is plugged into the Energy Portal.

Beagel (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ladyshore colliery

Hi, I wondered if someone could review and consider updating the assessment for Ladyshore Colliery as it has changed a fair bit since last it was assessed :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated assessment to class B.Beagel (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Ta :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


Automobile Mileage Reporting

While not a direct edit of the Energy Portal, the Wikiproject Automobile discussion page is having a discussion about whether or not to include fuel economy as part of the Automotive Infobox. If interested, please share your opinion. 198.151.13.8 (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review request

I'm looking for some peer review on the Solar energy page. I added a request for copyedit help to the "to do" list on the portal. Sorry if that's a no-no. The unit conventions on the page might be of interest to the group. Sunlight can replace heat, light or electricity so there isn't a clear one-size-fits-all unit to use. I've used metric joules and watts throughout the page but some might think kWh/MWh/GWh need to be included. I'm not sure. The FA list contains only a few articles on energy so I haven't had a good role model to develop from. The article is currently GA and I'd like to see it go to FA. It is of Top importance on the WikiProject Energy scale so maybe that provides some extra incentive. Cheers Mrshaba (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

For peer review I recommend to ask some peer review volunteers. I personally may recommend user:JMiall and user:4u1e, but I am sure there a lot of more good reviewers. For the copyediting you may request the League of Copyeditors.Beagel (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll see about JMiall right now and I'll refer the article to the League after it has cooled off.Mrshaba (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Spotlight

...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 12:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Coalite

Hi. The new article Coalite could use some assistance from somebody who has some idea what any of this stuff means. :) I believe I've inadvertently subverted it in attempting to help it out; I presumed it was about the substance rather than the company that produced it, but think now that the latter was more the intention. (I came upon the article addressing speedy deletion requests, and declined this one.) In any case, the previously unsourced contents have been rewritten and the article is firmly about the substance now. I very much hope that somebody who knows something about smokeless fuel can do something more for it, as it's embarrassingly incomplete. I'm not only having trouble tracing the history of its manufacture, but lack the background to understand a good bit of the technical material I've uncovered on the substance through google books. Thanks for any assistance there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Solar energy again

A few of us are making the last major push to get the solar power article from GA to Featured Article. Some more hands on deck would be much appreciated. We are also trying to improve the whole series of articles about photovoltaics, which are currently rather confused and repetitive. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ditto to everything Itsmejudith said. The Energy category needs more FA quality work and some collaboration would surely help. It's a hell of a situation because the people here are broken up into dogmatic groups that speak different languages. What are ya gonna do? Meh... Mrshaba (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I am new here but very passionate about all matters renewable energy and energy efficiency. I am considering starting a separate project for this field, is this something that would be useful? Some discussion as to the organisation of the topic (photovoltaics in particular) would go a long way GG (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about Renewable/Alternative/Green Energy categories

There is a ongoing discussion how to organize categories related to the renewable energy. If interested, please share your opinion. Beagel (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Radcliffe Power Station

I've been adding a little to this article and wondered, would a unit of electricity in 1926 been the same measure as it is today? Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Energy by Country Page Missing

Dear Fellow Users

Last year there was a page called "Energy Use By Country", (I think that was the name). There still seems to be a link for it in the article called "World energy resources and consumption". However, the article is missing. This missing article used to have a list of all countries, and the amount of energy used by each. It was an excellent article with very fundamental information.

The link now leads to a page with links to many energy articles from different counties, but this fundamental information is now very hard to find.

Does anyone know where it can be located, or if this article will be restored.

I think that it would be great to have a page with a chart with the following columns:

Country name total energy consumption (per country) population GDP energy consumption per capita energy consumption per GDP GDP per capita total oil use total oil use per capita total electricity use electricity use per country nuclear energy per country hydro energy per country coal use per country etc...

this could be in a big chart, and very informative

Cheers Tushar Mehta MD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehtat (talk • contribs) 00:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean this page? --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
sorry, i meant this page List of countries by electricity consumption --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


Thank you Patrick! Actually, I had found those pages already. What I meant was this page "Energy by country". This link is found on the following page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption , 1/3 of the way down the page, and under the heading called "by country"

Cheers Tushar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehtat (talk • contribs) 01:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 610 of the articles assigned to this project, or 21.9%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Beagel (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Support accepting new assessment scheme on energy-related articles. Could anyone please update the project template to implement the C-class assessment option? Beagel (talk) 06:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It is fine now. Ruslik (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Energy articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 1 1 7 3 12
FL 1 2 3
A 1 1
GA 4 4 26 51 2 87
B 19 90 156 259 79 603
C 34 209 429 1,273 385 2,330
Start 1 174 757 5,468 1,498 7,898
Stub 16 146 4,014 1,607 5,783
List 37 70 282 2 122 513
Category 6,990 6,990
Disambig 1 33 34
File 72 72
Portal 153 153
Project 14 14
Template 274 274
NA 2 37 48 362 582 1,031
Other 90 90
Assessed 61 568 1,640 11,716 8,210 3,693 25,888
Unassessed 1 11 914 926
Total 61 568 1,641 11,727 8,210 4,607 26,814
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 85,492 Ω = 5.11


Cold fusion issue

A new tactic being advocated is that WP:FRINGE doesn't apply to Cold fusion. I started a request for comment on the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There is also one now asking whether Cold fusion can be categorized as a pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Categories deletion/merge discussion

There is a ongoing discussion about deletion/merge of several energy-related categories, particularly concerning Category:Energy from Ocean and Water. Your opinion is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Country specific nuclear information

There is a discussion how to organize the country specific nuclear energy information. Your opinion is welcome.Beagel (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with Severn Barrage

Is anyone able to take a look at the Severn Barrage article. It covers an important and topical issue, but the article is stuffed full of cleanup tags. Attention from those with engineering, environmental, economic or other relevant interests, or those who can give editing help to bring it within the Manual of Style, would be great.— Rod talk 12:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oil shale extraction

I nominated the Oil shale extraction for FAC. Your comments and assistance are welcome. Beagel (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Community wind energy?

I merged the stub at Wind turbine cooperative with Community Wind, and tagged it for wikiproject energy. I have proposed naming the resulting article Community wind energy in a discussion I started at Talk:Community Wind#Move_to_Community_wind_energy. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Completed. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Energy Security article

The Energy security article has been tagged for cleanup for most of a year now - what it really needs is a complete re-write. I just added it to the To-Do/Cleanup list here. Expert, please? Simesa (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Energy

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Critical grid-interface issue neglected

Please see my comment here concerning the need to consider this in writing WP articles about the interface of renewable energy sources with power grids. Tony (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Notification of list nominated at WP:Featured list removal candidates

The featured list Nuclear power by country, which is within the scope of WP:ENERGY, has been nominated for removal. You can comment at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Nuclear power by country. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Scout Moor Wind Farm

Hello, Scout Moor Wind Farm is a new article, and a good article candidate under WP:ENERGY. Feedback welcome, --Jza84 |  Talk  17:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

New category: Energy in physics

Category:Energy was crammed with articles related to all aspects of energy, such as energy policies and power supply. To provide a home for the "pure" physics related articles, I created category:Energy in physics and I'm filling it right now. Please direct any discussion to category talk:Energy in physics. — Sebastian 03:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Energy or power?

Most of the subcategories of Category:Energy, such as category:Energy by country, category:Alternative energy, category:Nuclear power, category:Energy economics, category:Energy companies, category:Energy use comparisons are actually about power, not energy, at least if we use the correct physical term. But for all practical intents and purposes, the terms "energy" and "power" are interchangeable in these categories. Does anyone have an idea for how we could name a category that combines all of the above subcategories? All I can think of at the moment is some clumsy name like "power and energy use and generation". Any better ideas? (Maybe the best place to discuss this is Category talk:Energy#Energy or power?.) — Sebastian 09:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Category:Power and Energy or Category:Power and Energy Use would suffice. A little shorter than your "clumsy" suggestion, and omitting generation assumes all uses of energy, whether it be consumption, generation or manipulation/conversion. lucideer 02:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
These are good suggestions. But please let's keep the discussion in one place - I would suggest to keep it at Category talk:Energy#Energy or power?, since everybody who is seriously interested in this project should keep that category in their watchlist, anyway. — Sebastian 06:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, just when I was about to do the move, I became aware of the article Energy (society). This affects the naming discussion. Since I suspect it might be considered the main article for this project too, I figured I better leave a short notice here. Please go to Category talk:Energy#Energy or power? with any comments and suggestions. — Sebastian 04:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Unity in Energy

The world's population can be cosidered largely energy illiterate (see energy illiteracy)and the cause for that is that for none of the energy forms we are using we use the correct unit to quantify them. Oil in barrels, gas in cubic feet, coal in metric tons alternativefuels in MToe Boe's electricty in Watts solarpanels in Wattpeaks Wind in Windwatt-peaks and the list goes on... This while over 100 years ago a unit for energy was already agreed to be Joule; so let's start using the unit for all energy forms; you will be amazed by the new insights you get into energy issues when you start converting everything to Joule. For example a fuel burning car consumes 3 to 10 MJ (Mega-Joule) per km while a similar or better performing electric car consumes 0,3 to 0,5 MJ per km. And the price of fuel and Electricty per MJ is about the same(around 5 US Cents/MJ) To produce 1MJ of electricty around 1.2MJ of coal is used and the polution in this production process is less than burning 3 to 10 MJ of fuel in a car. see the Joule Standard for more info and I hope all of you can support making the Joule standard page grow.--Maurice r adema (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

agree, it is a good idea to use consistent energy units for comparison, and SI units in particular. (However, I think it would take more than 1.2 MJ of coal to produce 1 MJ of electricity. In fact, more than 2 MJ of coal would be needed.) --Pakaraki (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
While I generally prefer the SI system, I don't completely agree with this statement. Per WP:UNIT, we should use the more familiar units. Since, as far as I know, electricity bills worldwide use kWh, a non-SI unit, instead of MJ, I believe that a majority our readers are more familiar with kWh. — Sebastian 22:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Why not use {{convert}} and display both units? {{convert|2|MJ|kWh}} displays "2 megajoules (0.56 kWh)". add abbr=on And you get "2 MJ (0.56 kWh)" vıdıoman 23:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Cool, and it works the other way around, too: 0.56 kilowatt-hours (2.0 MJ) — Sebastian 00:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. :) I don't know why it wasn't brought up before. If you look up the template's page, there are about 30 different units you can convert that have to do with just energy. It's an extremely handy template. vıdıoman 01:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

template:Grid modernization

There are some issues with the {{grid modernization}} navigation template that might benefit from having a broader range of perspectives. Issues include

  • Possible improvements to the template name
  • Scope of the template

Would appreciate comments on the the discussions on the template's talk page. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Nuclear power station owners and operators

Category:Nuclear power station owners and operators and Category:Nuclear power station owners and operators in the United States have been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Cgingold (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

List of photovoltaic power stations

There are many new PV power plants coming online and our list has gotten rather out of date. Any help with updating would be much appreciated. Also, we need some more individual articles on the larger plants listed. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a fresh set of eyes on Grid Modernization navbox

This navbox is used on several articles of high importance. There has been a one month dispute over the question of whether the "Rural electrification" article meets the criteria for inclusion in the template. Full discussion is on Talk page for Grid Modernization navbox. It probably needs a fresh set of eyes, as the current personalities appear to be at an impasse after a month of effort at reaching a consensus position. Thanks. -J JMesserly (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Interest from an officer of Massey Energy in reworking the Massey Energy page

Please direct your attention to Talk:Massey Energy. Badagnani (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Mongolia Energy Corporation

I have edited the contents on 21st January, 2009 which I believe are now in line with encylcopedic requirements and properly referenced. I am not sure how the speedy deletion can be removed. (Nurvinwong (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Energy rationing

I just started an energy rationing article that needs expansion, more references, expert attention and integration with other energy-related topics. Please help if you can. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

WP Energy assessments (moved from the user talk page)

I've been doing some assessments, and am working on the basis that the "Top" importance rating is not for individual projects or even articles on particular countries -- they should be given a lower importance rating. Is this your thinking too? Johnfos (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, John. I knew that different WP projects use different approaches. In general I agree with your approach. However, so far I myself have worked on the basis that the most important individual companies (3-4 max per subsector) and project may be rated as the "Top" importance articles. Same applies to the individual country's articles, e.g. articles about the energy policy of U.S. or Saudi Arabia, and biographies. I think that biographies of Edison or Watt are worth to be assessed as the "Top" importane (for some reason, they don't have WP:Energy ratings so far). Right now we have following "individual" articles assessed as the "Top" importance articles:
I think we should have broader discussions, if we will have some limited exceptions in these subcategories or not. Another issue is that probably only the main article of the group of articles could be assessed as the "Top" importance articles. E.g., we have the natural gas article assessed as "top" importance, so the liquefied natural gas article should be downgraded from "Top" to "High" importance. Same principle applies also to Renewable energy, and Renewable energy commercialization and Renewable fuels articles. In general, we should go through and, if necessary, re-assess all articles in the "Top" and "High" importance categories.
I don't knew any other editor actively involved in the assessment of WP:Energy articles. However, I propose to move this discussion to some more appropriate place and invite other energy-related editors to express their opinion to generate more discussion. The rigth place seems to be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy/Assessment, however, I don't think that anybody will find this discussion there, so maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy? I hope that at the end of the day, we will have some sort of guidelines about importance ratings as we have about class ratings.Beagel (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi B, and thanks for that. I see WP:Environment has dealt with the situation by doing away with importance ratings altogether. That would certainly be an expedient solution... Johnfos (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it could be definitely one possible solution. At the same time, I personally prefer to have also importance ratings. And from the very practical point of view, importance ratings (particularly "Top" and "High" levels) are an additional tool to get an article selected for CD/DVD selections (e.g. see the energy articles selection). So, I propose to follow the principle that "Top" importance rating is not for individual companies, persons, or project. This is not meaning removing current ratings (see the list above), but of course, if necessary, we should review these ratings. At the same time, lets try to work out some guidelines for importance ratings. I also think that maybe we should have criteria that "Top" and "High" ratings should be confirmed by two WP Energy members. What do you think? Beagel (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I generally agree with what you say, but think that some energy companies deserve to have a top rating. These include: ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Chevron Corporation, Vestas, General Electric. Other organizations which should probably have a top rating include: International Energy Agency, OPEC. Johnfos (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I am fully agree that these companies and organizations (I would like to add also Areva, Gazprom and ITER to this list) should be rated as the "Top" importance articles. Beagel (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Sounds fine. Feel free to make changes to the top category, along the lines of what we have discussed. Johnfos (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Aeorads and Malpaso Company

Articles Aeorads and Malpaso Company have been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Malpaso Company and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeorads pages.Beagel (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Energy Accounting

I am having a problem with an editor coming into an article with a lot of complaints... which were patiently addressed... and who never the less seems to have an ax to grind about something Energy Accounting. This person tagged the article ... this person has not participated much in editing the article and has made claims that the article is presenting information in biased or non neutral manner. The current article is the result of consensus of people working on it over a period of time. The editor that has tagged the article apparently has multiple issues with the article that no one else does. No matter how this persons issues have been addressed so far, this editor continues to insist on his p.o.v. although the article does address the points of contention he is making, in a clear way. While the article may not be perfect... it is pretty good. It address's historically and in modern times the concept of energy accounting with multiple links. Could multiple eyes go to this article and take a look at it, and check the talk page discussion? skip sievert (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There are some problems with this article and I have left comments on the Talk page. It may also be useful for people to review other articles in Category: Technocracy movement. Johnfos (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as energy accounting is concerned, it is important to understand the capital structure of most energy companies. Almost all energy companies are highly leveraged, making things rather difficult for them during recession times. In fact, now is a difficult time to start an energy company if you do not have the capital to pour into a venture that requires so much equipment, machinery and manpower.

As far as accounting practices are concerned, I agree with the statement above under the topic of "Unity in Energy" regarding uniformity in the measurement of energy to simplify things. However, the fact still remains that certain types of energy are more expensive than others. These costs include shipping (as is the case with gasoline and other liquid forms of energy), transportation, as well as other costs. We categorize energy forms differently because of common cost accounting practices. For many companies, it's simply easier to measure oil by barrels instead of Joules for this reason. Janarax69 (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC) janarax69

AfD nomination of Biofuel in the UK

Article Biofuel in the UK has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biofuel in the UK page. Beagel (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Tokamak energy

I've become more and more interested in tokamak energy; however, based on all of the information that I've discovered, this kind of energy doesn't seem to be super efficient as of yet. While this could be the most efficient form of energy out there, power generated from tokamak reactors does not last very long. I am in the business of understanding the way the energy industry is evolving. I am no scientist, which is why I'd appreciate any kind of information that could improve my comprehension of the subject. Thank you. Janarax69 (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC) janarax69

Western Renewable Energy Zone(s)

This is really only a strategy so far, and not objective reality, but as with North American Water and Power Alliance and similar large-scale energy strategies....and this one being an official agenda, like TILMA, and also its scope in relation to various WP:Environment and WP:Rivers/WP:Mountains/WP:Lakes-type subjects....I was at a loss which WikiProject to drop this link at, but since it's primarily an energy topic, this would seem to be the place....I'm not interested in spending time on making it, just giving a heads-up for anyone in the project who follows macro-plan articles or political aspects of energy development/technology etc....Skookum1 (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WP: Energy Featured Article Candidate

Just wanted to let you all know that a proposed hydroelectric dam project has been submitted as a featured article candidate. Rampart Dam needs your comments, suggestions, and support to become a featured article. Please consider reviewing it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we have any designated project coordinator? Beagel (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Beagel, I think it would be good if you could be our co-ordinator, and join the working group, if you have the time. Johnfos (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Signed for this working group. However, if there anybody who would like to take over this task, I have nothing against this. Beagel (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Bio-energy with carbon storage and Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage

There is a proposal to merge Bio-energy with carbon storage and Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage to Geoengineering. You could discuss it here. Beagel (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:06, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Added to the project's page. Beagel (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Electric power by country

I proposed to merge categories Electric power by country and Electricity sector by country. You could comment it here. Beagel (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Klappan Coalbed Methane Project

Klappan Coalbed Methane Project got split from Sacred Headwaters, was originally very POV on the side of First Nations groups and NGOs, I split it and reworked both of them as neutrally as I could, if anyone knows anything about the project, feel free to jump in and improve!--kelapstick (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, the featured list Nuclear power by country currently has a clean up tag saying it needs to be updated. It would be great if a member of this project could take care of the issue, otherwise it may be nominated for removal. Once the issue is resolved, please indicate so here. Thank you,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Power stations in British Columbia issues

I just noticed that the above-named cat has tow subcats only:

and there is only one entry in the latter category. And I fail to see how a tidal station is not a hydroelectric station. Also to note that, given the about-to-be-proliferation of run-of-the-river systems in BC, that they also are simply another form of hydro power, and many extant powerhouses are really run of the river, such as those alnog the Lower Kootenay River west of Nelson. There are other power stations in BC, but none with articles as yet; small diesel and waste-heat plants abound across the province but none that I can think of warrant articles; the only non-hydro plant of significance that I'm aware of is Burrard Thermal Generating Station, near Port Moody; there used to be coal-fired stations in Victoria and Nanaimo and also in Vancouver at one time, but again none have articles though some might in future; there is a relatively important diesel station in Boston Bar, supplying power for hte central Fraser Canyon (very ironically, given the slew of high-tension lines transitting overhead); it might warrant an article as it's fairly old and was a main component in the Eastern Freser Valley grid, though nowhere near as powerful as even Alouette. My main issue here is the existence of the one-entry tidal power subcategory; I think it should be merged into the main hydroelectric category.Skookum1 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with moving the article from Category:Tidal power stations in British Columbia into Category:Hydroelectric power plants in British Columbia. — Sebastian 17:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, actually this is not about the categorization of power stations in British Columbia, but about general classification system of different power stations, including hydropower and tidal power. There was atempts here and here to solve this classification issue last year; however, consensus was not reach and right now the general categories classifies hydropower very narrowly not including tidal and wave power. Also, currently various types of power stations roll up by sub categories to various by country categories. So these become parts of a series. While there may only one entry for some of those, using categories to place these in multiple other categories seems reasonable. Beagel (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

For procedure of merging categories, please the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Beagel (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oil shale extraction

There is a plan to bring the Oil shale extraction article to FA status and renominate it for FAC. Any assistance, such as reviewing and editing, as also as any critical comment is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

China's energy security

Please, can someone copy edit this article. I also think you [Portal:Energy's team] should give top priority on China-Energy relate article. China is the 2nd major energy actor on the world, but we actually lack of article on these issues. I'm currently writing a very long and well sourced China in Africa, where copy edit is also welcome :] ,

Cheers, Yug (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I took on some of the copy editing. There may be a lot that can be salvaged from the article, but standing independently, it seems a little weak. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 03:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Solaraid

I was thinking would it be possible to add a bit more detail and upates? I was thinking that the SolarAid article should have more information about the systems and explain how those things work. --Abdulha (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(Power source) in articles

I want to revisit the issue of Coal power in the United States and Coal in the United States. Since these articles are so sparse, I'd like to merge them together, and Coal power in China, which I've put a good amount of work into, will be Coal in China. The only other in this series is Coal in Australia. Furthermore, Category:Coal power by country should change to Category:Coal by country, and then by that point, hopefully we would have much better cohesion for these. If we accomplish these things it might be a little easier to start adding more countries IMO. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 15:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. However, I think we also need to organize the categorization of these articles more systematic way.Beagel (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for article: Balancing Authority

Just a request for those in the industry that would be able to to write an article defining and giving examples of a balancing authority (with respect to the transmission of electricity.) The term is used in PJM Interconnection for example, but is not described. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.41.9 (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


Just an attempt to get this article started:

The term "Balancing Authority" is generally used (at least in the US) as the operating utility company, or other utility type organization, that has the responsibility to make sure that generation (sources) match the load within its area of responsibility. This function is sometimes referred as the “System Operator”, although the latter term includes transmission line monitoring and control responsibilities.

In order to accomplish this task, a "balancing authority" needs the "telemetered" results of real power produced by generators with-in it's "balancing area" and any tie-lines that connect to any other (external) "balancing authorities". The main task is to increase or reduce generation as the load increases or decreases. The net of the internal generation and any tie-line flow must equal the load. If the balance is not maintained, the change in energy flow results in frequency changes. The choices available the to the “BA” are to increase generation from one or more of the internal generators, to increase purchases via the tie-lines, or some combination of both. One computer tool used to perform this function is automatic generation control (AGC), which automatically sends increase / decrease commands to the pre-selected "swing" generators. Computer economic dispatch modeling helps decide which resource has the best "next increment" cost, based on unit efficiency, fuel cost, and line loss costs.

Performing these functions in a responsible manner requires consideration for minimizing the cost of power delivered to the loads, while not overloading any generator, transmission sysmetm component (line, bulk transformer, etc.) and keeping the system stable.

This last responsibility may mean a less than optimum economic dispatch of the sources. (a link to electrical system stability, static, dynamic, and transient would be appropriate )

Many of the larger "investor owned" utilities are (or previously were) it's own "balancing authority". Examples include: Entergy, The Southern Companies, Florida Power Corp.,

Many government (municipal or quasi-government) owned utilities function as a “Balancing Authority”. Examples include: Tennessee Valley Authority, Bonneville Power Administration, City of Tallahassee (FL), Board of Public Utilities, Kansas City.

Some large co-operative type utilities function as a “Balancing Authority”. Examples include: Southern Illinois Power Cooperative, South Mississippi Electric Power Association Seminole Electric Cooperative.

Some utilities have pooled their resources and assigned the "balancing authority" responsibility to a regional authority, such as the PJM interconnect, ERCOT, New York Independent System Operator. The North American Reliability Corporation (NERC) http://www.nerc.com/filez/ctrlarealist.htm has an extensive list of the various "balancing authorities" in the Us, Canada and a portion of Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chas in BR (talk • contribs) 17:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Mills task-force

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Historic_sites#Proposed_Mills_task_force please. Mjroots (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Raised at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Mills Mjroots (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Balanced Presentation

The "Smartgrid" page reads like an "Infomercial". There are both pros and cons for the smart grid approach. I saw no presentation of possible or actual cons. This is indeed a biased page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.173.160 (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Please

In the article Physics of the Impossible a single editor removed material that I believe, very much enhanced this article. The other editor’s view is that the removed material was off topic. My view is that it is very much on topic.

The current article is here: (current)

The version which I restored is at my sub page here: (restored)

Everything that was removed is related to the book. This is because, as the author writes: “The material in this book ranges over many fields and disciplines, as well as the work of many outstanding scientists.” There is a two and one half page list of the individuals, “who have graciously given their time for lengthy interviews, consultations, and interesting, stimulating conversations.” Most on this list happen to be scientists. I listed only the first 22 individuals and these are scientists. In addition, I linked their names to their biography on Wikipedia. I also listed each scientist’s fields of specialties. Many on the list in the article have more than one field of specialty (view here), and hence this reflects the breadth of knowledge contained in this book. If you look at this section in the restored article you will see what I mean.

In addition, before this material was removed by the one editor, the article was much more interactive. It was also more in line with the intent of Wikipedia that that the readers (as well as the editors) have a satisfying experience with Wikipedia. One aspect of this more satisfying experience is being able to access the knowledge that is available at Wikipedia on the sciences, and, perhaps, the mathematics. So, I linked not only the names on the list, but also many of their scientific disciplines to the respective Wikipedia article. Accessing this knowledge supports the following WikiProjects and their respective portals: (there are more I am sure)

Also, there were graphics that were removed which support the article and the concepts in the book. I believe these should be restored as well. These are on the restored article page, at my sub page. The captions of the graphics show that the book is grounded in real science. If you scroll through the restored article you will see the variety of graphics. I believe these enhance the article aesthetically, as well as help to give a clearer picture of the concepts contained in the book and the article.

Lastly, there were external links that were removed which reflect the concepts in the book. These external links were removed as though they were not relevant. For example, I will list some of the external links, and then the page number in the book, to which each link is related:

  • Solar sails: pp. 152, 158 - 159, 166, 172…
  • Space elevators: pp. 165 – 169
  • Black holes: 156, 232, 235 – 236…
  • Travel at the speed of light: 159 – 161, 163 – 165, 169 – 170…

Unfortunately the external links that were removed are going to have to be restored one at a time, because they cannot be cut and pasted back from the revision history without some distortion. I think these external links should also, be restored to the article.

I think the bottom line is, let common sense decide. Even Wikipedia guidelines say that they are just guidelines, not letter of the law.

I would appreciate a consensus on whether or not to keep the removed material. Please place your comments here: Consensus please. This is on the talk page of Physics of the Impossible.

Thanks for your time Ti-30X (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Synthetic fuel

There is a plan to improve the Synthetic fuel article to the GA level. In this process, there are still several issues, which should be done before renominating this article for GAN. All members of WP:Energy are invited to participate in the discussion about the article improvement and to assist improving it. Beagel (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sharp Solar

I was looking at Sharp Solar and it looks like a stub, but it doesn't have the "stub" bar thingy. Perhaps someone should add one Star3Wars3 (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is short indeed, but rather a start class article than a stub. Beagel (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Energy portal news template

Could anybody help with adding the date parameter to the Template:Energy portal news? Beagel (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Peak oil GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Peak oil for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I submitted a request for listing the most popular pages under WikiProject Energy. The list would be created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy/Popular pages. Beagel (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible deprecation of the "Future" templates

I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Since this project uses such a template, I invite everyone from this WikiProject to participate in the discussion. --Conti|✉ 11:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Three Gorges Dam

Three Gorges Dam has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Tom B (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a ongoing Collobrative Energy Indpendence Day

Since 2005 there has been a Collobrative Global Energy Indpendence Day held on July n10tht he birth anniversary of Energy Pioneer Nikola tesla(1856-1943) Re tesla Society. A day to sponser alternative vehicle races and shows and promote alterenative CLEAN GREEN renewable energy .Maybe an mention in the article on energy? Thanks! IMPVictorianus (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Hydroelectric Power Plant

Hi, everybody! I would like to create a {{Infobox Hydroelectric Power Plant}}. Can somebody who is interested in subject help me!?

I know generally how to make a template, but something like Template:Infobox Military Structure, that needs Template documentation (documentation subpage) is to much for me. The template would have main sections like:

  • GENERAL DATA (name, location, image, caption, map type, latitude, longitude, map size, map caption, type, coordinates...)
  • HIDROLOGICAL DATA (catchment area, annual flow rate...)
  • RESERVOIR DATA (max. operating level, max. spillway level, capacity...)
  • POWER GENERATION DATA (gross head, installed capacity, mean annual output...)
  • EQUIPMENT DATA (turbines - type, units, installed discharge...., generators - units, rating, power factor, speed, max. rating..., transformers - type, rating,...)...
  • DATA ON STRUCTURES (name of the dam, type, volume, dam lenght, capacity,...)
  • DESIGN DOCUMENTATION (who made a project for Hydroelectric Power Plant...)
  • EQUIPMENT (what companies gave equipment - turbines, generators...)
  • CONTRACTOR (what companies built it...)
  • POWER PLANT COMMISSIONING (the year of construction start, changes and renovations...)

It would be interesting if somebody for example click on Pelton-Francis (turbine type) in infobox, and than wiki link show him Pelton-Francis article, and so on... I think it would improve Energy Portal articles. Please help me if you can. Thanks. --Kebeta (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a Template:Infobox dam, which is also used for hydroelectric power plants. If you have any additions, you could discuss this at the template's talk page. Beagel (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Tiber oilfield

I'm writing this article with a dash of hope that I get it right. Collaboration, especially on technical matters, would be appreciated. Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Energy, environment and sustainability

Energy, environment and sustainability are pretty much all tangled together with different concepts of economics also being tossed in Energy economics. Any one here wishing to get more familiar or involved in the sustainability aspects of things with editing and participation can do so here on this newly formed task force page... participation in this page for those interested is encouraged Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Sustainability task force Thanks~!~ - skip sievert (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Subsea" and energy

The article Subsea is currently written as if the term "subsea" is the exclusive province of the oil and gas part of the energy industry. This is not the case. The term is widely used in marine biology, geology and in the emerging field of deep-water, floating wind turbine technology. So in my view, the article should not be so narrow as to exclude renewable energy (e.g., the floating turbines) but perhaps should go further and not be limited to energy as many other fields use the term. Could I interest any other editors in taking a look and weighing in? N2e (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Tagging energy articles by bot

To simplify the process of tagging energy related categories and articles with the project banner, I propose to make a request for using AnomieBOT for this purpose. I already made a preliminary request here. To go forward, the list of categories is needed, which is approved by the WP:Energy. In general, I propose to tag the Category:Energy and all its subcategories and sub-subcategories etc. However, if the full list is needed, I would like to ask your assistance for creation that kind of list of categories. Any opinion? Beagel (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I made a comprehensive list of the categories Beagel proposed on my talk page: User:Anomie/Sandbox5 (that may not exactly match "Category:Energy and all its subcategories" mentioned above, perhaps later I'll make a list of that too). It might be easiest to just go through that list and make any necessary corrections. Anomie⚔ 16:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I gave up on trying to get the entire list of subcategories of Category:Energy. This is why "and all subcategories" is often a bad idea: Category:Energy → Category:Energy by country → Category:Energy in Japan → Category:Transport in Japan → Category:Transport in Japan by location → Category:Transport in Japan by city → Category:Transport in Tokyo → Category:Streets in Tokyo. Anomie⚔ 22:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Some comments. Following categories should be removed from the list because it clearly is not a part of this project.

I am not sure about following climate change category. I personally don't think that they belongs to this project; however, some other participant think they do. I think we need further discussion about these categories:

Also, probably following categories do not belong here:

Beagel (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

All above mentioned categories are removed. Beagel (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:SILENCE, I'm going to start on the tagging. If the bot needs to be stopped for any reason, post your reason on this page. Anomie⚔ 03:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record: Although most of the bot's additions look appropriate, I removed tags from some pages about the U.S. nuclear weapons program (and I see that someone else removed a few others). These pages had been tagged because the weapons program is in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), along with several other activities (such as human genome research) that are not related to energy technology. --Orlady (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The list needs more vetting before the bot proceeds. Please remove Category:Units of luminous energy and Category:Power. The latter might seem appropriate, but it contains articles on basic physics, not just articles on energy technologies. From the project page, the project "refers only to energy as used by humans to do daily practical things, not physics concepts of energy in theory."--Srleffler (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have ended the task. Once the issue above is addressed by multiple members of this project, let me know. Anomie⚔ 13:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
To avoid confusion, it is better to remove following categories from the bot list:
I think this would resolve this issue. Beagel (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Some others to remove:
Orlady (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I propose also to remove following categories. Although mainly these categories belonging to the WP:Energy in general, they include a number of articles, which are not in the scope of the project. Relevant articles may be tagged manually.

Beagel (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Some categories are changed. Please see #REDIRECT Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 29 and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 7#Category:Hydroelectric power plants by country.Beagel (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

A quick peruse of the list of categories leaves me with only one that I think does not belong. Category:Residential_heating strikes me as end use more than about energy itself. Category:Energy conservation would seem to cover the efficiency aspect of home heating along with other energy saving articles so I'm not sure that Residential heating belongs. Mishlai (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, Power cables has T-aerial (radio transmission- probably a bad cat), and Power/ lamp cords (marginal interest as a energy article). So how about a temporary maintenance cat (hidden) for marking the articles autotagged? We could then quickly cull the list. alternatively, a pointer to the bot's edit history if the the changes are contiguous. The niceness of the maintenance cat is that there is a thoroughness measure- folks remove the cat when verified. This makes it easy for manual editing or as a rapid AWB pass. -J JMesserly (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Support this proposal by JMesserly. The technical explanation how it could be done is here.Beagel (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Just leaving a note to say I'm thoroughly impressed with the categories. They seem to cover every facet of this topic and more, I'm left, rather embarassingly, not being able to make any suggestions for once. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Category:Residential_heating and Category:Power cables should be removed. At the same time, the later subcategory Category:Submarine power cables clearly belongs to the WP:Energy and should remain for taggin by the bot.Beagel (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

One more relevant comment concerning possible overlapping with the WP:Physics. Beagel (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Categories Category:Pipelines in India and Category:Pipeline stubs removed from the list. Beagel (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There must be an error: Talk:Newcastle, New South Wales should't be in this WikiProject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elekhh (talk • contribs) 07:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Automatically assessed articles are listed in Category:Automatically assessed Energy articles. All members of the Energy Project are invited confirm the bot assessment by removing the 'autotagged=yes' parameter from the WP Energy's project banner template if you agree with the assessment, or removing the project banner if the article is not belonging to the scope of the WP:Energy. Beagel (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Renewable Energy Certificates and Green certificate

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but are these articles about the same thing or two related but significantly different systems?

The Green certificate page says that they are "also known as Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) in the USA", but the Renewable Energy Certificates article clearly states that they are only a program in the US. Could someone clarify this? Perhaps there could be a main article about the concept and subsections or other articles about the various systems using that concept.

Thanks, — sligocki (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There's also Renewables Obligation and green supply tariffs (see Good Energy). Obviously the jargon in this field is not internationally standardized yet. Different people start similar programs and make up their own terms. As to what each term means what in what country, the various articles might list that. To say that a particular term refers only to a program in the US would require an exhaustive study of all the similar programs in other English-speaking countries. It would be safer to say the term refers to a program in the US and leave out the word "only" unless we have a reliable source for the "only" bit. Then if someone finds another country using the term, they could add a section about that. --Teratornis (talk) 03:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

British Columbia Electric Company needed

This was a subsidiary of the British Columbia Electric Railway - more or less the same company in fact though with a different operating infrastructure - which was nationalized in 1961 to form BC Hydro, or the main building-block of it anyway. The railway itself is now the Southern Railway of British Columbia, while the transit system is now run by TransLink. Please see Talk:British_Columbia_Electric_Railway#BCE_.2F_BC_Electric_Company. If someone knows much about the company succession or knows how to start a basic company outline I'll add things when I see them....also will post at WP:Energy.Skookum1 (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

See WP:LAYOUT, WP:CORP, WP:CITE, and WP:FOOT for information about writing articles. You could start the article as a user subpage: User:Skookum1/British Columbia Electric Company and just put in whatever you've got. You might also ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Columbia. The limiting factor for Wikipedia articles is to find reliable published sources. If we have sources for a topic, we can write an article. If we don't have sources, then we can't. It's not solely a question of whether somebody knows about the topic. On Wikipedia, just knowing something isn't enough. See WP:NOR. --Teratornis (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

CONVERT KILOWATT HOUR TO AMPERAGE

I NEED LOAD SERVICE LOAD CALCULATIONS

FOR THE ABOVE PLEASE!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.192.119 (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You could ask on the Reference desk. They might need a little more information about your line voltage and so on than you specified. --Teratornis (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources discussion on Encyclopedia of Earth

I've just started a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard on the Encyclopedia of Earth. I'd appreciate thoughts there. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Since not everyone will go there to examine this information I will post what I posted there.
If Encyclopedia of Earth is not a reliable source then there is no such thing as a reliable source ;). It is beautifully done, and it is peer reviewed and topic edited and the largest reliable information resource on the environment in history. See this page for more information. Economics in regard to environment is just one of many subjects published there. The Environmental Information Coalition (EIC) is comprised of a diverse group of respected scientists and educators, and the organizations, agencies, and institutions for which they work. The EIC defines the roles and responsibilities for individuals and institutions involved in the Coalition, as well as the editorial guidelines for the Encyclopedia.
The Secretariat for the EIC is the National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE), Washington D.C., USA. NCSE is a 501(c)(3)non-profit organization with a reputation for objectivity, responsibility, and achievement in its promotion of a scientific basis for environmental decision-making. The Department of Geography and Environment and the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University also provide editorial support. skip sievert (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Rename Energy (society)

I have requested a page move of Energy (society) at Talk:Energy (society)#Requested move. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Electricity tariff article

I would really appreciate a few energy-informed eyes looking at the discussion over at Talk:Electricity tariff. The article has quite a number of problems and I would like to see one or two other opinions before changing it around and perhaps creating a new article. Please take a look if you have three minutes to spare. N2e (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI: 1970s Energy Crisis

FYI: I was trying to find an article to link to regarding the general 1970s Energy Crisis and could only find articles discussing specific events during this period. Since it seems to me this period is signficant historically I went ahead and created a stub.

Anyway, anybody interested in the topic please feel free to hack on the article as you like.

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Article rating consistency?

Hiya! Just passing through and curious to know if one minute per article in your latest blitz is sufficient to produce consistent ratings across your project? Browsing through even casually there are several instances where "C" class and "Start" class do not appear in any way distinct and precisely zero guidance is provided as to the rationale, or methods whereby an article may be "improved". Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion in general and please feel free to reassess or notify here any article, which has questionable assessment. However, "Start" class is quite automatic assessment, that means every article which needs significant improvement, but is not "Stub" anymore. The general guidelines could be find at Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy/Assessment.
At the current moment the most urgent issue is to get project articles tagged with the project banner. That explains absent of "comments" or "guidelines" in most of cases. The revaluation with emphasis on "B" class articles from one side and "Start" class articles from another side would be the next stage. The issue is that the number of editors in "assessment team" is rather limited, so every editor who feels he/she would like to contribute to carrying out this task is welcome. Beagel (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Rename StatoilHydro to Statoil

StatoilHydro has changed its company name to Statoil, and all links and name references should be updated. I have done a few, but didn't dare update all the intricate tables and interlinking articles. Hopefulle, someone more proficent in WIkipedia than me can step up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjornwang (talk • contribs) 09:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Deregulation articles

I was trying to find out a little bit about electric deregulation, as I'm considering switching providers, but I don't know much about what I can shop around for and how.

I found at least two state-centric deregulation articles that appear to be non-NPOV articles:

Also, Community Choice Aggregation appears to be written like an advertisement.

I suggested merging information from these articles to Electricity provider switching, which appears to be a very Texas-centric article (and also ad-like). I'm not sure if this is the right move.

I think there should be a general deregulation article that is more generic rather than state-specific (it's OK to aggregate state-specific information in such an article, I think). More importantly, I think it should be a little less "politically charged."

Tckma (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization of articles

Hello editors. I have noticed that a significant number of countries do not have an article like List of power stations in xxx, while having articles like (examples):

  • List of geothermal power stations in xxx
  • List of hydroelectric power stations in xxx
  • List of nuclear power stations in xxx
  • List of photovoltaic power stations in xxx
  • List of solar thermal power stations in xxx
  • List of tidal power stations in xxx
  • List of wave power stations in xxx
  • List of wind farms in xxx

Thus i think it is better to at least create a List of power stations in xxx and redirect it to any of the above technology-specific lists. And if the content of a technology-specific list of a particular country (xxx) is too short, to move all the contents of all the lists to List of power stations in xxx (creating redirects). And as for wind farms per particular country, to merge "Onshore wind farms" and "Offshore wind farms". Doing these would greately ease the navigation between the related articles. Any comments? Regards. Rehman(+) 03:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Importance rating of renewable energy articles

Worldwide installed capacity of wind power 1996-2008
President Barack Obama speaks at the DeSoto Next Generation Solar Energy Center, in the USA.

Renewable energy has gained importance in recent years. We now have an International Renewable Energy Agency, renewable energy policy targets in some 73 countries around the world, and rapid growth globally in many renewable energy industries. I'd like to propose that the importance rating of renewable energy articles in WP:Energy be raised accordingly. So, for example, I suggest that Renewable energy commercialization, Renewable energy policy, and List of onshore wind farms now move to Top importance, and some other RE articles could also move up one step on the WP importance scale. Johnfos (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, I agree with you that we need to check the ratings of renewable energy articles. I fully agree with promoting Renewable energy commercialization and Renewable energy policy articles to the 'Top' level. Probably also IRENA should be re-assessed as 'Top' or at least as 'High' importance article. However, I have some doubts about the List of onshore wind farms. 'High' for sure, but I am not sure if it is really the 'Top' importance article.
I think that the best way would be if you yourself will update the ratings. Of course, if you prefer to not to do this yourself because of your active editing on these articles, I may update the ratings of these articles I agreed, if there is no objections. The real problem is that the assssment team of this project is practically non-existent, and there is a lot of tasks which should be done. For example, there are 9,934 articles tagged with WP:Energy banner, and all these should be go through to verify or update the current assessment. This concerns particularly articles without proper assessment these 1,659 automatically tagged, 3,494 without the quality assessment and 5,743 without importance assessment. Any assistance with assessing the project articles' is welcome. Beagel (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Appreciate your comments and would be grateful if you could take a look at some of the RE articles when you get time. Would be good if we could maybe get some additional editors to help with WP:Energy. Perhaps User:GNOJED3891 would be interested? Johnfos (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


Coal-fired power stations

{{Infobox power station |name = Example Power Station |primary_fuel = [[Coal]] ([[Lignite]]) }} Hello. I think it would be a good and helpful move if all the coal power stations include the Type of coal in the relevant infoboxes, (example on the right). Regards. Rehman(+) 11:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It will helpful, of course, but it will be extremely difficult to find this information for all coal-fired power stations. Beagel (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes that true. A lot of such articles needs an infobox itself... I have linked (actually, still linking) all fossil fuel power stations into this article. Hopefully it will, someday, make doing the job a bit easier, and reduce orphans. Regards. Rehman(+) 14:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Add EU information?

Should the information for the EU be added as an unranked entry to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources? I understand it's not a country, but with the Lisbon Treaty taking force on 2009-12-01, the EU now has a legal personality and its information is already included in

There's already a lot of useful information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_European_Union#Statistics TimeClock871 (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Australian wind farms

Anti-Russian bias

I've noticed a strong anti-Russian bias in a number of the energy related articles here. "Russia in the European energy sector" stands out as being blatantly biased and agenda-driven, but the bias can be seen in a number of articles as well. For instance, the articles for pipelines involving Russia, like South Stream and Blue Stream spend a lot of time dealing with "criticisms" and "controversies," while the Nabucco pipeline, which has a specific goal of excluding both Russia and Iran, is presented in as something positive and non-controversial, even though it's received a fair bit of criticism, see here: http://www.economy-news.co.uk/nubacco-iran-gas-pipeline-0401.html

I'm not much of an expert on these issues, but it would be nice to see a bit more balance in Wikipedia's presentation here. 84.138.192.213 (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

International Sustainable Energy Agency

There is a discussion concerning redirecting the International Sustainable Energy Agency article to the International Renewable Energy Agency. Your comments and opinions are appreciated. Beagel (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wind power consulting companies

This article could use some serious love from the project. I noticed it today after doing a {{uw-coiublock}} and decided to do some basic cleanup, but even after that it's still hurting. Before removing all redlinked, external-only linked and non-linked entries from this article, which is essentially a list, it seemed to be nothing more than a linkfarm article, and a good target for spammers. After removing those entries as well as some weasel-words from the section titles, it looks like it might be salvageable by someone with the right knowledge. It still doesn't conform with WP:LIST and could be argued that it's nothing more than a directory, so hopefully someone with more knowledge than I can step up and improve it. After all, it is linked directly off of the {{wind power}} navigation template. Cheers, everyone! Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to mention that it still needs to be rated on the quality and importance scale for the project. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
List of wind turbine manufacturers suffers many of the same problems as the other article, and should probably be looked at as well. For now, I have removed all redlinked and non-linked entries from the lists in that article. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

GLNG

There is a discussion about the article's name of GLNG, a Santos-led Gladstone-based LNG project. Your input is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

New infoboxes

Hello. I would like to know your opinions on the creation of the following new infoboxes:

I thought of the other types of facilities too, but that doesnt seem that important. Your comments are appreciated. Best regards. Rehman(+) 09:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I personally prefer to keep the number of specific type of power stations infoboxes limited and to use the universal Template:Infobox power station instead. Right now we have two type specific infoboxes — for hydroelectric power stations because it is integrated with the Template:Infobox dam, and for nuclear stations. I think that in case of all other power stations it is possible to integrate the specific features into the general power station infobox. However, I will not oppose the creation of these proposed templates if there is a clear consensus to do this. Beagel (talk) 09:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Yea, you're right. It would only clutter the space. ;) Best regards. Rehman(+) 09:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I think infobox clutter is a valid concern and just don't see the need for the new infoboxes. Johnfos (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There has been considerable discussion about energy-related lists lately and a suggestion from Beagel that at least some of the discussion be centralised here...

I am concerned about the poor quality of many of the energy-related lists that we have and would encourage editors to try and keep up the quality as much as possible. Each article should ideally have a lead section which introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria, references which verify what is being said, adequate images, and sortable tables. Perhaps aim to fulfill at least some of the criteria in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and eventually bring some of the lists up to FL quality if possible. So far we have two energy-related FL lists: United States Secretary of Energy and List of vegetable oils.

Lists such as those below, which are very short and have no citations, should should probably be redirected. Or if there are more entries to come then the article should have an expand tag or say that "this list is incomplete", or something similar.

Lists that have not a single citation should definitely have a "More sources" tag on them. -- Johnfos (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I am starting to redirect some single-entry lists and tag others to provide helpful guidance. Johnfos (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Single-entry lists are never useful, but bare-bones lists without much in the way of sourcing do have some value in identifying topics that need to have articles, while providing "it exists"-level info on those topics. For example, List of high schools in Tennessee has some value for both users and contributors. Sources do exist for lists of power stations by country (for example, the world nuclear reactor database), although it likely will require many sources (and a lot of effort) to assemble complete lists. These lists for Africa appear to be woefully incomplete -- surely most of these countries (if not all) have more than one power station. --Orlady (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Orlady. These lists (along with some other) were created during an attempt to limit power-station-by-type lists (see here) by 1000MW, thus moving smaller entries to regional lists. It was created only for the act of "not losing information". I have not problem if consensus is reached to redirect. Best regards. Rehman(+) 01:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I restored the lists that had been redirected, tagged them as "incomplete lists", and added a couple of power stations to the lists for Egypt and Ghana (I also added a couple to Nigeria's list). The redirects were not beneficial to users -- I think the user who clicks on List of power stations in Egypt should be shown a list, not an article like Aswan Dam. It's unfortunate if the list is incomplete, but if the user is notified that it is an incomplete list, they will not be misled.
There is value in having lists of all power stations in a particular country -- this is worthwhile information that can be hard to find. The lists should not just include the smaller stations in each country (omitting the largest ones), and they should not just the hydroelectric stations (omitting gas-fired, nuclear, etc.). --Orlady (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Need to avoid listcruft

I would generally agree with this statement from WP:Listcruft:

In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article.

-- Johnfos (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that above-mentioned statement is valid and should be taken into account when setting up criteria for the energy-related lists. If there are only few power stations in the list, it does not make a change to create a separate list, but rather include it into the relevant article. Probably the most relevant articles are these which are bout the electricity sector in the given country (there may be exceptions, of course). These articles are listed in the Category:Electricity sector by country and its subcategories. So, the first thing is that in parallel with the list creation we should create also relevant article related t the list (or vice versa – a list should be related to the article). Another thing is a number of power stations in the list. By my understanding, it makes a change to create a list only in this case if it includes at least a a certain number of power stations. I don't knew if this number should be ten or twenty or something else, but I hope we could agree here.
It is also important to agree criteria for inclusion. The main criteria here is probably size. I don't knew what is the acceptable minimum size for inclusion. Probably we have to diversify here because in some large country there could be hundreds power stations with capacity of 100 MW while in some smaller countries only few power stations could exceed this limit. Also, we should think how to deal with different type of power stations. 100 MW is very small for nuclear, quite a small for hydro- or other thermal power stations, but significant for wind farms and lamost impossible for most of PV power stations.
So, as you see I don't have any very clear position yet, but I hope these thoughts will help facilitate the discussion. Beagel (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

World oil market chronology

There is a ton of inter-related lists which seems to be better off merged together as a summarized article. A thorough look into these seems that there is possibility of a good summarized merge. Most of there are quite left out and orphaned. Looking forward for more opinions. Regards. Rehman(+) 14:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If you referring to the oil market chronology lists, I think that there was some kind of collaborative efforts behind of the creation of these lists. I am not sure how many people are watching this page, so I suggest to leave a messade about this discussion on the talk page of creators and main editors of these lists. Beagel (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. Will do that soon. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 14:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Anaerobic digestion

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Anaerobic digestion/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman

Bob Park's "What's New" newsletter of March 5, 2010 has an item on the Newman machine, and has this to say about the above article:

Coverage of the Joe Newman case in Wikipedia is terrible. It's a remarkably useful encyclopedia, but you need to verify.

I'm not at all familiar with this subject, and wouldn't know where to begin in improving the article, nor do I know in what way Park feels the article is faulty. I did want to point this out, though, so that someone who is knowledgable about the subject can do whatever clean-up is necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ "The Economist – The End Of Cheap Food".
  2. ^ "Crime Against Humanity".
  3. ^ "Financial Times: OECD Warns Against Biofuels Subsidies".
  4. ^ "Food Prices: Cheap No More".
  5. ^ "Bush Signs Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007".
  6. ^ "Global Science Forum Conference on Scientific Challenges for Energy Research: Energy At The Crossroads" (PDF).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Energy/Archive_1&oldid=1137385420"