Talk:Renewable energy

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Forking

I suggest we fork this article into one page for each of the major source or category of renewable energy. Each can then be expanded as necessary. This page is getting a little too long and messy. Thoughts? Nerd (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Problems with wind energy

I see many articles lately being circulated attacking especially wind energy. If i try and research a bit i get lost. You can find everything you google nowadays. Some specific problems with wind is that it increases fossil fuels since it needs base power. I can understand that this was the case in the first years, and that there is still work to be done especially regarding energy storage and grid infrastructure but have things progressed at all? Maybe above some percentage of renewable penetration the problem gets fixed? Another huge problem that is being circulated is that wind energy will never produce enough energy to cover the energy used in the production. And finally, where i live they put them in mountains, opening roads for machinery, destroying trees by the thousands. Is there any analysis in that? tl;dr Any good updated meta analysis paper on wind energy? Thanks. ^{— Unsigned, by: 176.92.78.44 / talk} 15:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Cats?

"Let's also note that those anti-wind advocates who appear so concerned with the wellbeing of birds are oddly silent on the issue of the domestic housecat - cats kill billions of birds a year compared to the hundreds of thousands (at most) estimated by wind turbines."

I think this is, as it is currently worded, a bad argument since roaming cats (although still an environmental problem in and of itself) usually kill common birds that are not endangered. They don't kill eagles for example. So the argument could be improved by clarifying that the absolute number of birds (and bats) deaths from wind turbines doesn't count as a disadvantage, but the fact that wind farms could have a unique impact on rare and/or endangered areal species, which isn't comparable to other things like cats, can be a genuine environmental concern. Nesslig20 (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this can come off as deflection but anti-wind people usually also refer to birds as a whole rather than get concerned about particular species or type (a.k.a. birds of prey, migratory birds). There are overlaps though, as not all victims of wind turbines are hawks or unique to wind turbines. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, as I stated before, simply pointing out the absolute number of all bird or bat deaths doesn't count as a disadvantage. The environmental impact of wind farms to certain species also heavily depends on where they are placed. Let's say a wind farm placed right within a path that migratory birds commonly use. So, the argument that points to the impact of wind turbines to aerial species may be flawed when it uses general terms (e.g. birds as a whole), but when it uses specifics (e.g. A wind farm being build near or within the habitat/migratory path of a rare species) it may have some basis. That's why I think this section could be improved by adding nuance.

For example:

"Let's also note that those anti-wind advocates who appear so concerned with the wellbeing of birds are oddly silent on the issue of the domestic housecat - cats kill billions of birds a year compared to the hundreds of thousands (at most) estimated by wind turbines. Although wind turbines don't pose a environmental threat to all aerial species in general, they may have a significant impact to specific birds or bat species, depending on where and how they are build."

I don't know how to add sources, but here are a few I could find.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2017.0829

https://www.nature.com/news/vultures-blind-to-the-dangers-of-wind-farms-1.10214

Nesslig20 (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Gold? (Update)

Can this page have a gold rating? Or a silver? Or at least a bronze? The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 04:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sqrt-1 I added a bronze. Think it should be Silver. CorruptUser 22:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@CorrupyUser Renewables have had a rapid improvement cycle the past few years, this article needs to be updated as even some of the positives are understatements. Keeping it bronze for now should be alright as it's a bit behind cutting edge.PhoxyDude (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The article also has a lot of unsourced statements. Raising it above bronze would be ridiculous. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Problems

Much of this page sounds like it was made by someone who works for a fossil fuel company. The entire section on solar energy is negative and never mentions that any greenhouse emissions even from production would come even close to the emissions produced by coal or even oil/gasoline. User:BlueValley02 00:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You're Kinda right, I edited the Negative facts with updated numbers, so I should also add them to the positives.PhoxyDude (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

What a time to be alive...

Guess what... rural people in Spain and our environmental movements (Ecologistas en acción) are starting to fight against RENEWABLE ENERGY projects (expecially wind turbines) as much as thermal and nuclear ones. Do you know what it means? Mainstream environmentalism is getting hard-greener as environment continues to deteriorate, and many of the previous solutions (biofuels, solar, wind...) are now part of the problem. Now what...? Nitrato de Chile (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Nitrato de Chile

Umm... ¿"Citation needed"?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Just search in google "Parque eólico" or "Macroplanta solar" in Google España and you´ll find lots of news about those controversies at our local newspapers

Of course, don´t forget about Ecologistas en Acción website (our local Greenpeace, but quite doomer/hard-greener) Nitrato de Chile (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Nitrato de Chile

"...and many of the previous solutions (biofuels, solar, wind...) are now part of the problem." Perhaps they're perceived as such, but the last time I checked they were perfectly viable, albeit still pricey to set up. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't find "look somewhere in Google" to be a very convincing way to substantiate a claim.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Meh, all we really need is massive investment into ultra-high voltage transmission lines (UHVTL). The problem with wind and solar is that they produce too much at some times, and actually make a loss at times, whereas natural gas can simply shut down. With an inter-connected grid, the price and consumption evens out, and renewables become much more profitable as they can always send the energy somewhere. Even without renewables, a UHVTL-based grid has lower losses, needing less electricity in the first place. CorruptUser 17:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

https://www.laopiniondemurcia.es/comunidad/2021/05/04/denuncian-impacto-ambiental-macroplanta-solar-50917615.html

https://aquienlasierra.es/sierra-de-guadarrama/alegaciones-ecologistas-parque-eolico-peguerinos/87822/

https://www.ecologistasenaccion.org/federaciones/comunidad-de-madrid/

Take some sources, Robert

BTW, spanish environmentalism is getting against HSR rail too... and quite obsessed about Peak Oil and its consequences Nitrato de Chile (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Nitrato de Chile

The first two are objections to particular projects - not against the concept of renewable energy. I am not sure which story you mean to refer to in the third link.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The third link sends you to the official website of Ecologistas en Acción (our local Greenpeace-Earth First-Sierra Club-whatever). I´d recommend to take a look at their content Nitrato de Chile (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Nitrato de Chile

The point I'm making is that while many ecological groups object to nuclear energy in principle out of some misguided "nuclear is bad" idea, they don't - as far as I know- have the same objection to "green energy" in principle. About twenty years ago I was employed by Spanish wind farm builder Gamesa to give English lessons to senior executives (a good gig by the way). At that time it was by no means unusual for ecological groups to object to specific projects. A particular issue was bird kills. We used to talk about it a lot.

So objections from the green crowd to certain renewable energy developments are not new, nor are they general in nature in the same way that they are to nuclear power.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)