Georgeperez (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 316: | Line 316: | ||
:::"''What else can I add?''" You can provide a [[wp:RS]] source that says this technology exists. The websites of companies trying to sell [[perpetual motion]] devices are not enough. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 02:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC) |
:::"''What else can I add?''" You can provide a [[wp:RS]] source that says this technology exists. The websites of companies trying to sell [[perpetual motion]] devices are not enough. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 02:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
Read this part, this is proof explaining the technology exists. How else would there be a patent pending status on this machine? Can you also stop deleting the information that explains how this technology works? I would greatly appreciate it. [http://www.novaalternative.webs.com] |
|||
The force of [[magnets]] placed negative on negative sides push each other away, every understands this. This [[magnetic force]] is what creates the revolutions that allow the [[turbine]] and [[gearbox]] to generate electricity in the [[generator]]. |
|||
What do you not understand about this? Here is more information. Also, the fact that proves a company is selling this technology should be enough to let you know that the technology exists. |
|||
How the turn of the rotor is created in detail: |
|||
There are two parts of the JP where the magnets are located, not including the generator. One, is the introduced magnet (IM) by a robot arm (RAM), the other is the [[rotor]] magnet (RM). At the 12 o'clock position, the RMs (RM1 at 12 o'clock, RM2 at 3 o'clock, RM3 at 6 o'clock & RM4 at the 9 o'clock position) all are at the same radius and they face the negative sides in the same direction. When RM1 is at the 12 o'clock position, the RAM reads an [[infrared]] signal that sends a command to be pressed towards the same radius of the RMs at the 11:30 position then the RAM pushes into RM1 until it reaches the 1 o'clock position (IM facing it's negative side towards 12 o'clock and RMs @ 12 o'clock facing their negative sides towards the 11:30, which creates rotation. As RM2 nears the 10:30-11 o'clock position, the RAM is signaled and pulls IM far enough to keep RM2's magnetic force from keeping a full revolution from occurring. [[Inertia]] then takes over for a moment to allow RM2 to reach the 12 o'clock position with the magnet's force and RAM is, again, signaled to repeat the process for the next RM in line, RM3 @ 11:30 position. |
|||
This proves the technology works. If it works that means it exists. It exists, if you cannot understand this part- |
|||
"How the turn of the rotor is created in detail: |
|||
There are two parts of the JP where the magnets are located, not including the generator. One, is the introduced magnet (IM) by a robot arm (RAM), the other is the [[rotor]] magnet (RM). At the 12 o'clock position, the RMs (RM1 at 12 o'clock, RM2 at 3 o'clock, RM3 at 6 o'clock & RM4 at the 9 o'clock position) all are at the same radius and they face the negative sides in the same direction. When RM1 is at the 12 o'clock position, the RAM reads an [[infrared]] signal that sends a command to be pressed towards the same radius of the RMs at the 11:30 position then the RAM pushes into RM1 until it reaches the 1 o'clock position (IM facing it's negative side towards 12 o'clock and RMs @ 12 o'clock facing their negative sides towards the 11:30, which creates rotation. As RM2 nears the 10:30-11 o'clock position, the RAM is signaled and pulls IM far enough to keep RM2's magnetic force from keeping a full revolution from occurring. [[Inertia]] then takes over for a moment to allow RM2 to reach the 12 o'clock position with the magnet's force and RAM is, again, signaled to repeat the process for the next RM in line, RM3 @ 11:30 position." |
|||
-then I don't know what to tell you other than you are playing little kid games and will be reported to wikipedia for deleting all information I provide that allows the planet to know how this information is true and represents the end of blackouts for all eternity. Oh, and if you connect it to a photonic lazer thruster in space and let magnet renewable energy continue to power it you can reach a lovely speed. |
Revision as of 04:09, 1 April 2009
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Human power energy
Strange, that in an article like this, electricity, generated by human power isn't mentioned at all. Nevertheless it might be one of the oldest forms of renewable energy. Since how long already lights of bikes are made working by the biker himself, as he pedals, while the dynamo is droven by the turning of one of the two wheels? Maybe (not quite) hundred years?
By now more and more products, that used to function on batteries, are also available in a version, provided with a crank, so that the owner can load it with his own personal human renewable energy.
And then there's the fact, that a certain nature protecting foundation for years already is trying to get a decisive answer on it's repeatedly posed question, how many pedaling persons it would take, to together make a small energy plant function. (Just imagine, hardly any jobless any more, because as good as anyone can pedal for some four hours a day, which is less, than cyclists use to do, when they are active. Of course this gives some associations with historical galley slaves, but by now professional cyclists, although sometimes called "Slaves of the road" in general have little to complaint about. In other words, it could be made quite luxurous in there. Natubico (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I had the same idea about human power replacing power plants. However, even trained cyclists don't usually reach more than 250 watts, so after four hours you would (at most) get a single kWh of energy per day. However, human power for direct use (as in bikes) deserves a mention in this article IMO. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- So it has been tried out? Where, when, how? Did they use a caster wheel? Natubico (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, how many men would it take, to make the rotor of a windmill turn that fast, that it generates as much electricity, as the wind averagely does? In other words: could pushing men profitably generate electricity for a company, in places, where windenergy is no option? --Natubico (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- So it has been tried out? Where, when, how? Did they use a caster wheel? Natubico (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Animal power energy
"However, human power for direct use (as in bikes) deserves a mention in this article IMO."
And what about animal power? To veganists it's a bad thing, but this kind of renewable energy might even be/have been more important than human power. Besides, the nearer exhausture of crude oil sources comes, the more important these two kinds might become again; (in stead of intercontinental flights, line boats, droven by the wind in their sails, solar light on their panels and some hundred rowing employees; sustainable for sure). --Natubico (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Idea
Add sustainable development infobar to bottom of page. Type this:
- This is a very large and complex template, which would come after a long "See also" section. I just don't see the need for it. Johnfos (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Proposed merger with Renewable Fuels
Discuss at: Talk:Renewable fuels#Merge proposals
Link Fix
I am not familiar with the Wikipedia and I am sorry if I ask here off-topic, but can someone, please, add a link to Slovak version of this page? It should be like this: sk:Obnoviteľné zdroje energie or the full address is: http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obnoviteľné_zdroje_energie Thank you, Juraj Kubica (147.175.112.15 (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)).
- Done. you can just edit the article and put [[sk:Obnoviteľné zdroje energie]] at the bottom. works similar as on this talkpage. Cheers. Mion (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Free energy
The use of this phrase to refer to renewable energy appears to be a wp:neologism. It is an idea Reddi has tried many times to push forward, but has yet to provide any sources for his claim. It may be used in passing, but in all the examples I see it is a juxtaposition of concepts rather than an actual phrase. Please provide a source which claims it is used colloquially to refer to renewable energy (anymore than an oil man might use "bullshit" colloquially to refer to renewables). NJGW (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that "Free Energy" has been used contemporaneously to refer to over-unity claims, which renewable energy is not one of. --Skyemoor (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I also agree. Yilloslime (t) 20:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following:
Free energy colloquially denotes renewable energy with no or negligible feedstock cost, including solar power, telluric power, water power, and wind power.[citation needed]
This text should not be reinserted unless references are provided which explicitly support the point being made.--Srleffler (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Image discussion
I note that despite the request for a discussion rather than an edit war,[1] one editor has preferred instead to simply remove an image[2] with the summary "image is unencyclopedic. There are no scales, data values are used, accuracy unverifiable". Let's take those one by one. I did not create the original image in question, but do know a lot about it, and did create the subsequent revisions.
- Unencyclopedic - that would be, which, off topic or poorly worded/crafted? Neither is supported by any discussion.
- no scales - actually there is a scale - TW, and the image is sized to fit on the page in a relative scale, which was adjusted slightly from the original. In creating a volume graph using cubes, the scale is the cube root of the value.
- data values are used - what? You are saying that they should be removed? That would render the chart meaningless, as it would if the data values were removed from any of the other charts on the page.
- accuracy unverifiable - actually the data is well sourced and verified as accurate. As to tweaking the number of pixels used for each object, it is relatively accurate, though it could be off by one or two pixels (out of several hundred), not a significant objection. Anyone who wishes can count the pixels and verify the accuracy of each cube. If you add up all the human use numbers from the primary source used to create the chart, they add up to 14.6005, which is within the rounding error of 15 provided by the much more accurate secondary source used for current consumption.
I would suggest restoring the image to the article, or actually, replacing it with the recently updated Image:Available Energy-4.png, which has added hydro (by request), and increased the image legends (by request). I find it particularly useful as a comparison between the availability of solar power, wind power, and current energy consumption. Delphi234 (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- There are no scales on the image: are the cubes linear, logarithmic, or other? There is no way to understand or verify the size of the boxes as there are no scales. Use of data value labels vs. scales denotes a weak graph. Pixel counting: I can't believe anyone who broach a point like that.
- Interestingly enough, "user" Delphi234 is under a sockpuppet investigation, as user Apteva, who claims to be the one who has created these charts, has been pushing this image relentlessly at Solar Energy, against a 6-1 consensus. --Skyemoor (talk)
- You tell me. Do you think the cubes represent a linear ratio to the numbers they represent, in which case the volume of the cube is proportional to the number, or are the volumes proportional to the log of the numbers, "or other"? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. You want a ruler next to the cubes, feel free to draw one in if you feel that it would improve the drawing. What I see is a lot of empty complaints and no substance. I don't recall the earlier discussion, but apparently the diagram has already been extensively discussed and objections are in the minority. The diagram was well conceived when it was created by Frank Mierlo, and there is no reason to not use it. I did find a course on statistics[3] which covers this type of graph,[4] and it said that the easiest type of volume graph to create (where the value is proportional not to the length of a bar, as in a bar graph, or to the area, as in an area chart, but to the volume of an object), was to use cubes, so that the edge of each cube is proportional to the cube root of the value. It also says that when values have a wide value, areas are not adequate, which is why a volume graph was used. Frank originally tried and rejected a log bar graph. The volume graph is much better. As to pixel counting, you were the one who brought up that there was no way to verify the accuracy. But there is. Just count the pixels. Or print it and measure the sides with a ruler. The main point though, is if you don't like the diagram, create a better one. And in the meantime use this one. Delphi234 (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's hard to believe you wouldn't remember the RfC and the Mediation and the ongoing objections over the last few weeks - objections that are hardly in the minority.
- The comic sans font (or similar) used for Image:Available Energy-2.jpg is again, neither professional nor encyclopedic. Mark83 14:48, 27 January 2007 [5]
- A volume graph was probably used so the wildly disparate scales would fit together and still be visible. Its worth noting that using volume to represent quantity is a technique to reduce the apparent difference between various amounts. It seems the amount of solar energy available isn't much more than total consumption, maybe 4 or 5 times at a glance. This is because a casual user expects the only relevant axis to be height and that it is linear. But with a volume graph a doubling of the height means an eight times increase! I was caught out by this until I read the attached text on World_energy_resources_and_consumption#Wind_power_2. See How_To_Lie_With_Statistics for more fun. --Schwern 07:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC) [6]]
- I'll tell you how to lie with statistics, use the amount of solar power absorbed by the earth instead of the amount usable by solar plants. The solar number is complete BS, only 1/3 of the available area is land area and at best we can convert maybe, MAYBE, 1/5th of the absorbed energy into electrical energy, then only if you deforested the entire earth and replaced all land available at all with solar panels, the number would only be like 3,000 TW. That amount of solar power that would ever be thinkable to use would be far less than the 15 TW block, not even considering intermittency and other problems. Yes, the graph is deceptive, very. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 04:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC) [7]
- Boring graphic, requires too much study to work it out. Not worth its space. The point would be better simply made in a sentence. --SmokeyJoe 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[8]
- The information conveyed by this graphic is already text-based. The graphic elements rely too much on data that is mostly hidden from view (the implied volumes). With so few items that represent such truly large differences it would be better to elegantly state the contrast in text rather than using a graphic. --Cheng Houston 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[9]
- Someone with graphics skills could take the boring full-sun picture from below (or download a similar one) and superimpose a pie chart on the solar disc to illustrate these data. These isometric cubes are primitive, hard to decipher, and take up too much space. --NameThatWorks 15:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[10]
- First of all, your question was unrelated to the matter at hand. Anybody would chose solar, simply because the cube is bigger. However, the image is deceiving, because it is three-dimensional. Not only that, but it as a boring graphic that could be easily explained in a sentence or two in the actual article. -Rycr (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[11]
- I think that the point is indisputable, that not all incident energy is "available for use." Only a tiny fraction is, in fact available for use. If the caption read "total incident energy" instead of "total available energy" it would be correct. As it is, it is simply advocating development of solar energy using a misleading statistic. I don't want to jump into any wiki-politics, but in my opinion the article would be better with the graphic simply removed and I don't understand why the graphic remains against almost such strong opposition.Wphamilton 20:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[12]
- Not only is this an encyclopedia, where novel data has no business being, this is Wikipedia, where reinterpretation of sources is prohibited. Spare us the condescension, ad-hominem arguments or grasping for straws. Unlike everyone else here, I have no special knowledge of solar energy, nor have I ever edited this page (or any other energy-related page). But I have a nose for OR, and I can check sources, and I can verify that there is overwhelming agreement here (on talk) to not use the diagrams. It seems highly unlikely that everyone but you is wrong. -- Fullstop (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Fully agree with Fullstop. There is no need to recycle the same argument over and over and over and over. The diagram is considered inappropriate for this article, and if you even need to understand why, re-read this talk page section fully each time you get the urge to put the diagram back it. --Skyemoor (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- (edit note) rm embarrasingly unencyclopedic childish misinterpretation of source, consensus to remove after two RfCs and a mediation. Enough is enough.Itsmejudith 22:55, 5 October 2008 [13]
- (edit note) removing unencyclopedic and misleading image ScienceApologist 18:18, 25 October 2008 [14]
- (Part of a larger post) You casually remark upon area and volume graphs as though they are commonly used methods of presenting data that anybody will understand. They are not. Few, if any, of the many data plotting software packages available in the world can do either sort of graph, which should tell you something about what the world thinks of their popularity and their clarity. Even Microsoft products, which are frequently criticized for encouraging poor presentation of data, do not support such charts. (Yes, they have a chart type called "Area," but the charts it produces are not the "root 2" chart that you're talking about. The closest thing it has to what you're talking about would be the bubble chart, but that is meant for presenting 3-dimensional data, not 1-dimensional data like we are discussing here.) Your remarks about scale are a non-sequitur -- scales can be drawn independent of transformation, though they of course must be drawn with the transformation in mind if they are to be accurate. There's nothing stopping you from presenting data that varies from 2 to 7 on a log10 scale from 1 to 10, for example, and if the data are a power function of the abscissa that may even be the best way to present them. Squirmymcphee 06:47, 18 October 2008 [15]
- Unencyclopedic, deceptive, displays Exergy as Energy and all of the above. Sorry to carry this over to this talk page but this guy is using multiple accounts to push this diagram. I hope this is almost over. Mrshaba (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's pretty damning... Delphi234, if you have a really good reason reason for this image being kept nows the time to explain: What does the image accomplish? NJGW (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Not damning in the least. I don't know where the above was cut and pasted from, but it certainly was not from any archive from this talk page, and it may not be at all relevant to this article. I will note that the editor who cut and pasted it has indicated a familiarity with a competing technology to renewable energy, and may simply be attempting to hide any positive information about renewable energy. They have historically only edited one article, and seem to be hell bent to get me banned so that they can continue to put whatever they wish into that article. What the diagram shows is the relative availability of the majority of the non-carbon based renewable energies. I do not know why biomass was not included, but biomass has a really bad name right now, and while it is a renewable resource, it does not contribute to our biggest problem, which is how to get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and stabilize global temperatures. In the future, biomass will need to be used to regulate the earth's temperature to whatever we want, but that's a policy decision, and so far not all earth's leaders have even been able to agree to keep from letting the earth go to hell in a handbasket, and are continuing to permit runaway global warming. We are using mostly coal, oil, and natural gas for energy right now, all of which are rapidly increasing CO2 levels. There has been a lot of talk about wind power, for example T. Boone Pickens in the United States is a big advocate of wind power. But the question in my mind, that the diagram answers, is, is there enough wind power to meet current consumption, and what other resources do we have, for example, the diagram was updated by request to add hydro, but you can see that all the energy in all the hydro in the world is only about half of what we are currently using, so the diagram is a visual indicator of what we can expect from hydro (gravity based hydropower). The same for solar and geothermal. So I see the diagram as an essential element to the renewable energy article, and challenge anyone who doesn't like it to create a better one but in the meantime use this one. For someone to even comment on a font used in a jpeg in an FA review is kind of bizarre, when anyone could load the image into MS paint or whatever Apple/Linux use and change it in 15 seconds... Thanks soooo much for pointing that out. Delphi234 (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's pretty damning... Delphi234, if you have a really good reason reason for this image being kept nows the time to explain: What does the image accomplish? NJGW (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but Delphi234 is blatantly lying through his teeth. He has been pushing this image at Solar Energy under the name Apteva, has been caught pretending to be multiple people, and here pretends that nobody understands his deception. And then he blames us for being "hell bent on getting him banned". For those wondering where the above comments came from, here is one of the many discussions on the topic. This user is highly, repetitively disruptive, and I've never had to say that in my 2 years editing here. --Skyemoor (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- If you look through that talk page you will find the very appropriate words "cat fight". None of the preceding paragraph has anything whatsoever to do with creating a quality encyclopedia and updating the image if needed. No, my comments about getting me banned were not directed at you, Skyemoor, though you seem to feel that the shoe fits. Actually if you check my edits you will see that I do nothing other than work to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. So, back to the topic on hand, if you feel the diagram could use improvement, fix it. If you don't feel comfortable making the changes yourself, ask about them. I'm quite willing to make any changes needed, and have already made a couple of changes per request. If you don't feel the diagram is appropriate to an article on renewable energy when the diagram clearly exists for the sole purpose of listing the major renewable energies, then you really have me baffled. By the way, links to talk pages can be made using double brackets, they are internal links, like this [[Talk:Solar energy#Graphic showing input scales|here]], and do not need to use single brackets as external links. Just use a pipe ( the vertical line like this: | ) to separate the text you want displayed instead of a space, as is done with an external link. Delphi234 (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if you like the idea behind image so much, then try to make it better. The major issue I see is brought up as: "The solar number is complete BS, only 1/3 of the available area is land area and at best we can convert maybe, MAYBE, 1/5th of the absorbed energy into electrical energy, then only if you deforested the entire earth and replaced all land available at all with solar panels, the number would only be like 3,000 TW. That amount of solar power that would ever be thinkable to use would be far less than the 15 TW block, not even considering intermittency and other problems." To settle this, you'll need to provide what sources you plan drawing the numbers from, so we see if we can even settle that issue first. After we've agreed on numbers, I'd suggest creating a version which presents the data as areas instead of volumes, because that seems to be a big sticking point for a lot of people. NJGW (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Areas don't work for large ratios. You end up with one pixel squares. I would really caution against even reading what I consider to be mostly drivel and do a total self examination of the diagram. The only suggestion of any value I have seen is the font, and that is so trivial that I don't even know why it was even made (without acting on it). I have thought a lot about how to indicate what the actual potential is for solar power, and wind power, and have concluded that the answer is precisely 15 TW - or whatever the total we are currently using, so I see no reason for speculating about intermittency, or availability, or efficiency, or feasibility, or anything else. In the future the world won't be using much more either, because today 90% of what we do use is wasted and we are constantly reducing our per capita use (in developed countries). Any estimates of any of those factors are moot if it exceeds our total use (it's like estimating that you can eat 67 hot dogs for dinner, out of a plate of 6,000 - would you?). The main thing that I learn from looking at the diagram is that hydro can't provide us with squat for additional energy, geothermal can provide a little, wind can easily provide 100%, provided that it is supplemented with adequate storage, and solar can provide a virtually infinite supply of energy compared to what we need (understanding of course that "infinity" actually means maybe 100 or 1000 or so, but that is so far beyond what we need that it might as well be infinity). Biomass isn't included, but it needs to be used only to regulate the earth's CO2 levels to whatever we desire, as previously stated, ideally maybe around 260-280 ppm. Delphi234 (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if you like the idea behind image so much, then try to make it better. The major issue I see is brought up as: "The solar number is complete BS, only 1/3 of the available area is land area and at best we can convert maybe, MAYBE, 1/5th of the absorbed energy into electrical energy, then only if you deforested the entire earth and replaced all land available at all with solar panels, the number would only be like 3,000 TW. That amount of solar power that would ever be thinkable to use would be far less than the 15 TW block, not even considering intermittency and other problems." To settle this, you'll need to provide what sources you plan drawing the numbers from, so we see if we can even settle that issue first. After we've agreed on numbers, I'd suggest creating a version which presents the data as areas instead of volumes, because that seems to be a big sticking point for a lot of people. NJGW (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Annual energy resources and consumption | |||
---|---|---|---|
Resource and use | Total supply | Technical potential | Current use |
Solar | 3,850,000 EJ [1] | 3,380 EJ [2] † | xx |
Wind | 110,000 EJ [3] | 795 EJ [4] † | xx |
Biomass | 3,000 EJ [5] | 104 EJ [6] | xx |
Hydro | 367 EJ [7] | 52 EJ [8] | xx |
Electricity | 57 EJ (2005)[9] | ||
Primary energy use | 487 EJ (2005)[10] | ||
|
Here's a table I've been putting together to display the solar energy resources - hat tip to user Fullstop for plenty of help. This page currently uses the World energy Report from 2001 to fill in a similar renewable resource table. The 2001 report is nice because it is a single comprehensive source but the numbers it presents are out of date in many respects. Consider that wind power and solar hot water have expanded about 5 fold and PV has grown about 10 fold since 2001. Ideally, this page should use the same numbers for theoretical potential, technical potential and current use that all the related energy pages use. Choosing current numbers will take some doing but it's worth the effort. Gipe or AWEA could provide good wind numbers, Idaho National Lab could provide geothermal, etc. Thoughts? Mrshaba (talk) 05:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- For the renewable energy article you need to add geothermal and wave power, as there has been a lot of discussion of each. I personally believe the "technical potential" is specious because while it tells us using todays state of the art that is what could be done, but tells us nothing about what could be done when the Earth population is 5 Billion, but we are using 500 TW, so that we can have lunch on the Moon every Friday, etc (I'm kidding). The wind number in particular is out of date, because it is based on 80 m turbines, but we are already at 100 m and talking about 130 m. So it's interesting as a back of the envelope calculation, but once you see that it is six times what you need you can throw it away. What did we learn? That we can get all of our energy from the wind and essentially an infinite amount from the sun, the same that we knew even before we did any calculations, just from looking at the sizes of the cubes in the drawing. That said, keep the technical potential column, it just shows that someone figured it out. But add a little color please. Make it look attractive. But I wouldn't use a table instead of the diagram, I would use it as well as the diagram. That way the 90% of us who are visual will get the information just as quick as the 2% of us who are math oriented. Delphi234 (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Include Nuclear
Nuclear power should be included in this category. Everything else in this category is just a derivative of the Sun's nuclear power. So these are no more renewable than nuclear power itself.129.93.159.120 (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- No. Delphi234 (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- For those who don't understand why "No" is enough of an answer: 129.93.159.120's comment is symantic nonsense which has not been removed because we are wp:AGFing that they were actually serious. Also, they haven't been back to ask for clarification so we assume "No" got the message accross. The fusion happening in the sun is not considered "nuclear power" by any source we could use. Nuclear power is created through radioactive materials which have a limited half-life and supply, thus they are not renewable. NJGW (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Calling the comment symantic nonsense doesn't sound like wp:AGFing. 'No' is not enough of an answer, but the issue should first be addressed in its respective section. And the sun's energy is nuclear... I'm confused how someone could maintain anything else. Solar (or any energy source) is only considered renewable in the context of using here on Earth in present day. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 21:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know whether or not nuclear should be included, but the article seemed very one-sided and did not clearly present the arguments that favor its inclusion. Moreover, the section on nuclear power was actually a misplaced anti-nuclear power rant, wandering well outside the question of renewablity in order to state negatives about nuclear energy.Chuxton (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- All we do in the relevant section is quote the balance of relevant, available and reliable sources. The existing wording was arrived at in the midst of considerable debate to find consensus (see talk archives). If anyone has a new suitable source that describes successful a fusion-powered electricity generating station on earth, or that tells us of a government that is including nuclear power stations as part of its actual renewable energy program, please take the time to quote it here first, before altering the careful consensus wording. --Nigelj (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, this article from a major UK newspaper this week still seems to be describing nuclear and renewable energy sources as alternatives, rather than aspects of the same thing, so it seems we have it about right in the article. --Nigelj (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Proposed Merge with Green energy
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
If the terms are not synonymous (and they appear to be in many circumstances), then they are close enough to warrant sharing an article. It seems Green energy should probably be merged with Renewable energy, as the latter is the more popular search term. Please also refer to the related discussions at the Green energy talk page. --Xaliqen (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose mergeWe can't possibly think of merging anything with Renewable energy because the article is already way too long. We should be looking to split articles off from this. Johnfos (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
(undent) The concepts do overlap, and so the press does use them together in articles... that has never been debated and is thus a straw man/red herring; and we are not arguing that. Where is the source which explicitly states these are the same? There are now and have been two sources at Green energy which describe Renewable E. as a subset of Green E. Once again, you can have green (non-polluting) without renewable (nature makes more in a reasonable time-frame). I fail to understand your confusion. NJGW (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Support merge |
Renewable energy portal
I suggest create Portal:Renewable energy. --Nopetro (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
This article may be worth referencing as it shows that Europe could have a 70% wind energy, 100% renewable power supply using hvdc super grids and no intermittency.
http://www.claverton-energy.com/green-grid-article-in-new-scientist-by-david-strahan-the-oil-drum-on-hvdc-supergrids.htmlBewislaker (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- But link to the actual article, instead of the summary.[28] 199.125.109.56 (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Some contradictions
Two pieces of data do not add up. At the top it says that current use of hydro outweighs biomass by around 2 times. But then in one of the tables it is described that hydro only produces 9 EJ while biomass produces 50. Clearly something is wrong, even from a layman's perspective all you hear about these days are big hydro being built, and definitely not biomass.
Source 28: http://www.undp.org/energy/weaover2004.htm Table 7 also shows hydro output heavily outweighing biomass. Now I didn't do the conversion between kW.hr and EJ, but it is very clear that the "current use" table is very wrong.
The page is semiprotected. Can someone change this? Cheers 125.238.84.154 (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- The problem, as I understand it, is that while traditional biomass provides a large proportion of the energy consumed in developing countries (and hence worldwide), measuring traditional biomass usage is very hard. (See endnotes 1 and 2 in the cited Renewables 2007 Global Status Report for some details and further sources.) New renewables are dominated by hydro, as you suggest, and as laid out in the pie chart File:Ren2006.png near the top of the article. Our article could (and probably should) be clearer about the distinction, but it is overly simplistic to insist that either set of figures is "very wrong". -- Avenue (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Bias?
Statements in the article about the vast amount of renewable energy available from the sun are misleading in my view and need to be contextualised. There are limits to our ability to harness the total figure, which includes energy which never reaches the Earth's surface. In addition to this is the efficiency with which the energy from the sun is converted into sources that can theoretically be harnessed. After that are the efficiencies of the systems we can create to harness the energy. Figures relating to biomass etc do not address the issue of crops for food or of the accessibility or suitabilit of the land for the crops. Fuel crops are already impacting on food resources as crops for fuel can get higher prices than those for food.
LookingGlass (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do you want to investigate reliable sources of information on this subject? The last time this was attempted, this was the obstacle to further forward progress in this area. --Skyemoor (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Request to add magnet renewable energy to renewable energy page.
(again, removing text of deleted article)
Georgeperez (talk · contribs) would like to add information on "magnet renewable energy". His article on this topic has been speedy deleted several times in the past 24 hours. Does this technology even exist? There were no sources given by George. I'll have a look for independent sources. NJGW (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I think I figured it out. It's a perpetual motion issue.[29] NJGW (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- What sort of information do you need? I showed you how to make the technology. Why must you continue to delete my information? Could you not ask me if this information is true? I'm putting it up one more time, this is actual renewable energy. If you could stop deleting my post, I would greatly appreciate it. If you need more information about this technology you can visit [30] or [31] to view information about the company that creates this new renewable energy. What else do you need from me?
- What else can I add? This is a perfectly clear example, is it not? It is not fair that you continue to delete my posts. Who do you work for? I have an environment to save. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeperez (talk • contribs) 02:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- "What else can I add?" You can provide a wp:RS source that says this technology exists. The websites of companies trying to sell perpetual motion devices are not enough. NJGW (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Read this part, this is proof explaining the technology exists. How else would there be a patent pending status on this machine? Can you also stop deleting the information that explains how this technology works? I would greatly appreciate it. [32] The force of magnets placed negative on negative sides push each other away, every understands this. This magnetic force is what creates the revolutions that allow the turbine and gearbox to generate electricity in the generator.
What do you not understand about this? Here is more information. Also, the fact that proves a company is selling this technology should be enough to let you know that the technology exists.
How the turn of the rotor is created in detail: There are two parts of the JP where the magnets are located, not including the generator. One, is the introduced magnet (IM) by a robot arm (RAM), the other is the rotor magnet (RM). At the 12 o'clock position, the RMs (RM1 at 12 o'clock, RM2 at 3 o'clock, RM3 at 6 o'clock & RM4 at the 9 o'clock position) all are at the same radius and they face the negative sides in the same direction. When RM1 is at the 12 o'clock position, the RAM reads an infrared signal that sends a command to be pressed towards the same radius of the RMs at the 11:30 position then the RAM pushes into RM1 until it reaches the 1 o'clock position (IM facing it's negative side towards 12 o'clock and RMs @ 12 o'clock facing their negative sides towards the 11:30, which creates rotation. As RM2 nears the 10:30-11 o'clock position, the RAM is signaled and pulls IM far enough to keep RM2's magnetic force from keeping a full revolution from occurring. Inertia then takes over for a moment to allow RM2 to reach the 12 o'clock position with the magnet's force and RAM is, again, signaled to repeat the process for the next RM in line, RM3 @ 11:30 position.
This proves the technology works. If it works that means it exists. It exists, if you cannot understand this part-
"How the turn of the rotor is created in detail:
There are two parts of the JP where the magnets are located, not including the generator. One, is the introduced magnet (IM) by a robot arm (RAM), the other is the rotor magnet (RM). At the 12 o'clock position, the RMs (RM1 at 12 o'clock, RM2 at 3 o'clock, RM3 at 6 o'clock & RM4 at the 9 o'clock position) all are at the same radius and they face the negative sides in the same direction. When RM1 is at the 12 o'clock position, the RAM reads an infrared signal that sends a command to be pressed towards the same radius of the RMs at the 11:30 position then the RAM pushes into RM1 until it reaches the 1 o'clock position (IM facing it's negative side towards 12 o'clock and RMs @ 12 o'clock facing their negative sides towards the 11:30, which creates rotation. As RM2 nears the 10:30-11 o'clock position, the RAM is signaled and pulls IM far enough to keep RM2's magnetic force from keeping a full revolution from occurring. Inertia then takes over for a moment to allow RM2 to reach the 12 o'clock position with the magnet's force and RAM is, again, signaled to repeat the process for the next RM in line, RM3 @ 11:30 position."
-then I don't know what to tell you other than you are playing little kid games and will be reported to wikipedia for deleting all information I provide that allows the planet to know how this information is true and represents the end of blackouts for all eternity. Oh, and if you connect it to a photonic lazer thruster in space and let magnet renewable energy continue to power it you can reach a lovely speed.
- ^ Smil (2006), p. 12
- ^ de Vriesa, Bert J.M.; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Hoogwijk, Monique M. (2007), "Renewable energy sources: Their global potential for the first-half of the 21st century at a global level: An integrated approach", Energy Policy, 35 (4): 2590–2610, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.09.002
- ^ Lorenze (1976), p. X
- ^ Archer, Cristina; Jacobson, Mark Z. (2005), "Evaluation of Global Wind Power", Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres, 110 (D12110), doi:10.1029/2004JD005462
- ^ Miyamoto, Kazuhisa, ed. (1997), "Energy conversion by photosynthetic organisms", Renewable biological systems for alternative sustainable energy production, FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin, vol. 128, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, ISBN 92-5-104059-1
- ^ SPECIFIED, NOT (2001), "NOT SPECIFIED", in Kyritsis, Spyros; Beenackers, A.A.C.M.; Helm, P.; Grassi, A.; Ciaramonti, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the First World Conference on Biomass for Energy and Industry, vol. NOT SPECIFIED, London: Earthscan, pp. NOT SPECIFIED, ISBN 1-902916-15-8
- ^ Smil (2006), p. 245
- ^ Smil (2006), p. 246
- ^ US DOE/Energy Information Administration (2007), "World Total Net Electricity Consumption, 1980-2005", International Energy Annual 2005, Washington: eia.doe.gov, retrieved 2008-05-25
- ^ US DOE/Energy Information Administration (2007), "Primary Energy Consumption by Source [Energy or Fuel Type], 1980-2005", International Total Primary Energy Consumption and Energy Intensity: Selected Country Groups ... and World Total, 1980-2005, Washington: eia.doe.gov, retrieved 2008-05-17
{{citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=
(help)