Talk:Renewable energy
How is a wind farm different from wind generators? Also, the list doesn't need to be all-inclusive; we don't have tidal, temperature gradient, salinity gradient, and other possible renewables on that list. Also, I'd argue that electricity generation isn't key to renewables. Using biomass to create liquid fuels or using a lens to power a solar oven could both be considered renewables, I think. --Belltower
I agree, and I suggest that you work the above into the real article and drop this page again. --Pinkunicorn
Certainly we should try to be fairly all-inclusive! (Perhaps a few odd ideas could be left out - like we could feed hamsters plant material and then run them on treadmill generators, but no....)
I heard that researchers are genetically altering some plants to produce hydrocarbon products which can be later processed into fuels. The process is not different from using natural plants such as sugar canes to produce ethanol, or extracting latex or oil from plants etc. Fuel producing genes can be added to some bacteria so that the production don't have to be plant based. The genetic engineering only makes the process more efficient by producing the building blocks.
So salinity gradient, hamsters and GM bacteria.
Renewable energies are indepedent from limited AND pollutant sources, because some renewable energies are pollutant, like the burning of biomass ( although the best ones are the non-polutant renewable energies). Perhaps would be interseting include a section about this in the article or create an article about non-pollution energy.Mac
Can anyone find more recent EU renewable rates. I remember reading an article yesterday that listed Denmark as 15% using just wind energy; our table shows only 6.5% (as of 1994). Rmhermen 14:49 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
This page has some serious NPOV problems. The first section (the only bit I bothered to read) takes the position held by many of the environmentalist fringe that locality is key (produce your own power, grow your own food, etc.) - when this is clearly far from a mainstream position.
Additionally, it makes the blanket statement that nuclear energy has some global and pervasive effects on the environment (via nuclear waste apparently) when this clearly isn't true. -- stewacide 19:16, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I agree and I have attempted to restore NPOV by removing comments like "However, the politicians that followed him dumped these plans and continued the established fossil-nuclear route."
- What's with this term "fossil-nuclear" anyways? Sounds like an arbitrary, politically modivated grouping to me. What's wrong with good ol' non-renewable/renewable energy? -- stewacide 08:14, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I have also attempted to remove the anti-nuclear bias and references to "we". There is no reason why renewable energy should be confined to local production and consumption. It can be, and is, generated in remote areas and transmitted to load centres. Tiles 00:36, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Removed "and it was the Pentagon that evaluated the potential scenarios for him and concluded that a shift towards renewable energy sources is the only long term option." Unsubstantiated statement used to support a political argument for renewable energy Tiles 07:19, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Icland data is from the page International Geothermal Association and a paper Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2000, Kyushu - Tohoku, Japan, May 28 - June 10, 2000.
Can we get some attribution for who it is that thinks nuclear energy should be considered renewable? DJ Clayworth 15:26, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hydroelectricity, or hydroelectric power, is a form of hydropower that use the energy released as a result of water falling, or flowing downhill, under the influence of gravity to produce electricity. Specifically, the mechanical energy of the falling or flowing water is converted to electrical energy by means of some form of generator.
Currently, OTEC is listed under hydroelectric energy: the definition above doesn't account for OTEC; as OTEC really relies on potential thermal energy vs. potential mechanical energy.... the definition above (for hydroelectric power) should be changed or OTEC should be moved from Hydroelectric to its own separate category or The Hydroelectric Energy Heading should be renamed to Hydropower Energy? (then Hydropower definition will probably need editing) - I'm unsure because I'm not sure of the accuracy of the definitions of Hydroelectric and Hydropower --Confuzion 17:30, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- There is much to do and you can change whatever you want. Tiles 06:05, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
---
I'm planning to add some stuff about general support mechanisms for renewable energy, eg tariff, quotas, production tax credits, etc. This may take a few weeks so please bear with me. Biffa 11:39, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Removed from article
I have removed this section from the article. As it sounds like utter garbage to me. G-Man
Earth power
The earth is a giant spinning magnet generator with two poles, one positive and the other negative. Enormous amounts of electricity are created by the earth every second, though diffuse and spread out. Telluric currents are part of this energy. This is why lightning is attracted to the earth. The earth's magnetic field is created by this massive amount of electricity generated by the earth. There is more than enough electricity in the earth to power every household in the world for free and with no byproduct pollution. It would use up much less that 1% of the total electricity that the earth contains. And each time the earth spins, it regenerates all of its electricity.
But how can this immense power be tapped and concentrated for home use? The first earth battery was invented by Alexander Bain in 1841. It tapped into the earth's natural electricity. In 1898, Nathan Stubblefield invents the electrolytic coil battery, a mix of an earth battery and a solenoid. From 1901 to 1917, Nicola Tesla built Wardenclyffe Tower, also called the 'Tower of Power'. It's purpose was to tap into the earth's natural electricity through a 300 foot shaft into the earth, hold, concentrate, and broadcast the electricity wireless to households all over the world for free. No one would ever have to pay electric bills again. It could also transmit radio and phone for free - no more phone bills. His inventions worked, but the project was abandoned because it was too expensive and he ran out of funding. Tesla went on to invent many household electric appliances that people take for granted, included in his 700 patents. Some wonder if a cheap portable non-wireless version of Tesla's tower could be invented for home use.
- Well it has all the trappings of garbage material, so it certainly needs to be kept out at least until it can be verified by credible sources. None of the linked articles support it. - Taxman 01:49, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
The linked articles are in Wikipedia. When you say it 'sounds like garbage to me', you are making an emotional judgement call. You shouldn't be insulting contributing authors. The part about the earth being a giant electric generator comes from the writings of Nikola Tesla, a 300+ I.Q. genius. Check out Tesla's Wikipedia page to see all the things he invented. I think you call it garbage because I'm writing it in layman's language so readers can understand it. If I wrote it in highly technical jargon, you would be less likely to call it so.
- I didn't write the comments above my indented paragraph or remove the material myself. But as stated, until you can justify the material with credible sources, it needs to stay out. Bring credible sources to bear here in the talk page and we would all be happy to put it back in. - Taxman 19:09, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
The credible sources are in Wikipedia under the headings: earth battery, Nathan Stubblefield, Wardenclyffe Tower, Nicola Tesla. These headings are linked to external source sites, including patents.