Talk:Green energy

Jargon

We need to be clear that "green energy" is jargon used by its proponents. If you'd chill on the edits for a minute I'll try and add some balance to this article. -- stewacide 19:42, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Not quite so. In some countries, such as the Netherlands, there is an official 'green energy' scheme, and while opinions may differ as to the 'greenness'of various energy forms the term is used by everyone. Jens Nielsen 16:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear power

Can anyone tell what rationelle they use to exclude nuclear power? It doesn't seem to be mentioned on the sites listed (or the parts of them I looked at).

Many and various. For a bit of a laugh, have a look at the reason given in this old version of the sustainable energy article that nuke is not renewable and compare with the current version. I agree that nuke is not renewable, but did the authors of this have any thought towards the logic of what they were saying? Or were they just repeating slogans?

The challenge is not to respond with the opposite POV. Andrewa 21:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should change nuclear energy to nuclear fission, as opposed to nuclear fusion (not yet commercially possible) which has none of the major problems of fission (i.e. fission radioactive waste deteriorated very rapidly max. 2 years I think, compared to 240.000 yrs for fission waste) Arnoutf 12:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Depending on weather fission uses a once through or an advanced reprocessing cycle as well as what type of neutron spectrum is utilised the waste decays to uranium ore levels anywhere between 300 and 10000 years. Nuclear fusion waste decays to similar levels within a few hundred years depending on the material used to build the reactor. The main advantage with fusion is that the actual quantity of waste is much less J.Ring 00:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In the Netherlands, wehre there is an official green energy scheme, ãnd nuclear power is excluded - notably without any outcry. We don't need to try to determine what is 'green' or emission free, just determine the views and the facts.Jens Nielsen 16:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is possibly because the Netherlands only operate one nuclear reactor. I imagine if France were to introduce a similar scheme there would be more of a controversy. J.Ring 00:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Biomass

Biomass is included on allthe sites I read. Really, EVERYTHING is poluting in some respect (in fact things like solar power and wind turbines are far worse for the environment than conventional power sources when you take into account the energy used and pollution caused by thir production, but don't tell the environmentalists that...). -- stewacide

Wrong; wind turbines repay the energy used in their construction in a few months of use; less for the larger turbines. --James S. 16:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There is always pollution arising from manufacture. However, it's important to get a sense of the proportions, and any life cycle comparison reveals that wind power is incomparably better than a fossil powered plant. Have a look at the eXternE study, for one example. Jens Nielsen 16:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Green electricity

From reading this article it is hard to understand why the title is "green electricity." The term is inexact, because not all the forms of energy listed are used to produce electricity. Geothermal energy can be used directly to heat buildings without being converted to electricity. Green energy would seem to me to be a more appropriate title (and is used in the body of the article). "Green energy" is also used about five times as much, according to Google. "Green electricity" tends to be used by power generation companies. Sunray 08:26, 2004 Jan 8 (UTC)

green electricity is physical non-existant for users.

The way commercial electricity is produced has received attention from the public due to substantial environmental effects. There are number of innovations in methods of production with higher costs compared to bulk production of electricity. To make these environmentally improved methods of production commercially attractive, "green energy" was invented as a commercial product. In an interconnected electricity grid there is no possibility for identification, so "green electricity" is and will remain an administrative product until it is the only type of energy left to use. Research is done with digital connected source-consumption systems bypassing the physical electricity grid. These new technical systems extent the present administrative systems in divers ways like on-line, near online and off-line. Egbert Bouwhuis at GPX --212.238.188.99 20:09, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hydro

Hydro plants produce waste water? Oh really? --Wtshymanski 21:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

How about adding a secton about Hydro?? User:FLJuJitsu 00:33 05 October 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over Green Energy

• There are many people who oppose "Green Energy". Their contention is that "Green Energy" has not been proven to have zero or near zero environmental impact. Some who hold these opinions also hold that everyone must reduce their own individual power consumption. Others who hold these opinions do not have any concern for environmental impact.
• Many who oppose "Green Energy" point to what they lable as "environmentalists constantly shifting opinions" concerning what is "Green Energy". Until recently environmentalists claimed that large-scale hydroelectric power was a "Green Energy" source. At present supporters of "Green Energy" do not hold that hydroelectric power is a "Green Energy" source.

This strikes me as unreferenced POV. The phrase "environmentalists constantly shifting opinions" gets zero Google hits. We should gets some sources for these "many people who oppose" it. -Willmcw 19:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

yeah, you're right, this bit need some cleaning up. also, all the climate change and environmental activists that I know consider small scale hydro to be a clean energy source. --naught101 06:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

"True ecological"

Green energy refers to environmentally friendly energy sources. In many contexts, burning biomatter qualifies (consider that the biomatter is broken down in any case, so it might as well be broken down in a power generator), as does hydropower (consider that after construction, little of the environment is harmed). Changing the article to read that only truly ecological energy sources can be considered green is probably a bad idea, as it gives the impression that no power source is actually green. -- Ec5618 16:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The ecological damage from large-scale hydropower is vast. This is a good article on biodiesel and its inherent problems. My opinion is that efforts toward anything but wind power sources are at least partially wasted. --James S. 16:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

When we compare hydropower generation to the effects of a natural dam, little additional environmental damage is actually done. Consider that the local environment is changed, obviously, when a new dam is built, but that local wildlife adjusts quickly. After a few years little evidence of the 'vast' damage can be seen. Biogas, released by decomposing biomatter, is indeed a problem, though the same gas is released by natural dams, and other factors contribute a lot more biogas.

Biofuels contain chemical energy, which is released when the biomatter is broken down. When it is broken down in a power generator, this energy can be put to good use, while decomposition outside of power generators is lost. Certainly, biofuels have practical drawbacks, as your article suggests. According to your article, bacteria infect biofuel, and may clog up engines. Also, as the matter must be collected, or even grown, some energy is always lost, and an infrastructure must exist.

Wind energy is perhaps the cleanest alternative fuel in existence, and can indeed easily be scaled to very efficient scales. It does have its drawbacks, though none that I know of can't be solved through technological innovation. It may disturb airflow, changing the local environment, but there is no real difference from the same effects caused by islands and the like. A large field of 10MW turbines shouldn't be too difficult to build, and could generate that amount of power for a significant percentage of the time. -- Ec5618 17:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparison of hydropower to a natural dam is hardly relevant. Natural dams of the size of Aswan, Grand Coulee, etc. are much rarer than hydropower dams. The impact on riparian habitat is significant and long lasting. (Just look at the salmon runs in the Pacific northwest of the USA.)

Biofuel Energy lost? If you asked the organisms doing the breaking down would they really say it was lost? Likewise, the nutrients and compounds resulting from the breakdown that are released into the ecosystem where that breakdown occurs (as compared to going up in smoke or slag). To say that this is lost is a highly egocentric non-ecological approach. Biofuels clearly produce significant pollution, so deserve to at least be on the questionable list. Zodon (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed guideline: National green energy suppliers & comparison sites

Due to the number of green energy suppliers around the world, and their varying shades of green, may I suggest that these may be best discussed and linked to in separate national articles, rather than here. This would also avoid the need for a potentially long list of internal and external links to such suppliers & comparison sites in this article.
For examples see Category:Green electricity by country.
See also the Wikipedia policy on external links.
Gralo 14:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be merged with "Renewable Energy"?

I haven't looked over the article, but just from the name they seem like the same thing. The only difference that I can think of is that nuclear is not considered "renewable". --Tea and crumpets 03:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a merge suggestion to both pages. I agree that there is a large degree of overlap, and insofar as "green energy" may be slightly different from renewable energy, such differences could be adequately described in the renewable energy article in a well-written paragraph. It seems "green" may be part of the debate about "renewable" (e.g. "how green is this particular renewable energy"), but not enough to warrant its own article in the long run. --Xaliqen (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(discussion continued at Talk:Renewable energy/Archive 4#Proposed Merge with Green energy)

Note, the discussion was archived and I linked to the archived discussion for future reference.--Xaliqen (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone should change the merge box. Its going to sustainable energy, instead of renewable energy. There's no discussion to merge on the sustainable energy page. What is the difference anyway? Green energy, renewable energy, sustainable energy, they all look the same. Someone should go around make sure that all those articles really are about different things, or else merge them together. 203.168.215.89 (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please fix the merge box so that it points here? 222.166.160.23 (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

All of these terms should be merged into a single article, as I pointed out, and argued for exhaustively, in January. Fortunately, those who were previously opposed to the merger, now appear to be mostly in favor. So, perhaps this can finally get done. --Xaliqen (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Renewable Energy 5 times higher hitrate on websearch

I agree with Tea and Crumpets. When searched wich both Google and Yahoo, "Renewable energy" totals 58 mln hits while "Green energy" only totals 12 mln hits. But is energy from 'green' and 'renewable' the same thing? On global average the green is somewhat more peculiar, a bit more green then the 'renewable' source. Many countries consider biomass as renewable, but not as green because it is used as a fuel for making steam, just like coal. Many people see green as the triplet of wind, solar and small hydro. Biomass is a major source, so it determines a lot on the whole. So, although I agree with Tea and Crumpets, I am not so keen on swapping the both definitions, I would rather plea for a more differentiated approach. Bouwhuise (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

They are the same thing, that's why this page should be a summary of the definitions of green energy and nothing else. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been having this discussion with colleagues for a while. Not all renewables are green, and vice versa. Certain fuel cell technologies, for example, are "green" in the since of emissions, but use nonrenewable fuels. I think we should leave it at "green" referring to sources that have good environmental intent (regardless of whether they're that great or not). Renewable, literally meaning "able to renew," should be left to sources that renew naturally. There is obviously overlap there. I can argue the semantics on this for an hour. For example, I can argue that solar energy is not renewable, since nature doesn't put the light back in the sun, i.e., the sun will eventually burn out. Clearly, that is arguing to the point of absurdity, but it shows that neither term nor any definition will make everyone happy and that we need to read for context and intent. The fact is, nothing is completely without some environmental impact (e.g. hydro), so to attempt to label something as "green" or "brown" inevitably becomes a judgement call and semantics issue. It is better to leave it all out there. I don't think the number of hits on Google is that relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.174.115.137 (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The real question is whether the debate surrounding green energy could be adequately addressed within the broader context of the renewable energy article. Personally, I think that this could be addressed to the community's satisfaction. Please also refer to the relevant discussion above and at the renewable energy talk page. --Xaliqen (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Logical Fallacies in Referenced Source for Nuclear Power

Hi all. I'd like to discuss the following sentence from part two of the article, Green Sources:

Some organizations have specifically classified nuclear power as green energy[15], but environmental organizations indicate the problems with nuclear waste and claim that this energy is neither efficient nor effective in cutting CO2 emissions, excluding it from clean energy[16].

And specifically this part: "but environmental organizations...claim that this energy is neither efficient nor effective in cutting CO2 emissions, excluding it from clean energy [16]."

long original research section

My point is thus. Many people can claim many things. It does not make them true. For example, many people believe and espouse the view that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Their belief does not make their view factually correct however. Now obviously Wikipedia articles are full of beliefs. In many areas there is no such thing as established facts. However in these areas relating to areas of scientific endeavour, beliefs should always be backed up with evidence. That is the Scientific Method and it is right and proper that this method is observed. So let's start. 1. Nuclear energy is "neither efficient nor effective..." in comparison to what exactly?. If I say Usain Bolt is neither quick nor fast, this is not necessarily true or false, logically. He is fast compared to me. He is slow compared to the speed of light. There always needs to be a source of comparison in order to make all-encompassing statements. If no consensus can be reached on what a fair and reasonable comparator would be, then I move that this sentence be struck from this article. 2. This leads onto problem two. Any comparator selected would have to make for a fair comparison. For example, arguing that Nuclear power is neither efficient nor effective in cutting CO2 emissions compared to cutting global energy usage by 90% may be a factually correct statement. However, it would not be a fair one. No power source whether it be Solar or Coal would be clean or efficient compared to simply cutting global energy usage by 90%. I move that a fair comparator would be only other recognised forms for mass production of electricity from the smallest (Solar) to the largest (Coal). 3. If we take one and two as a given, which in the interests of a logical consistent, scientific approach, I believe we should, then let's take a look at the source for the original sweeping statement, the "claim that (Nuclear Energy) is neither efficient nor effective in cutting CO2 emissions". This is source 16 and the link is: [1] First let's look at the source origin. A group called The WISE Group. In their own words: "We're small. We're powerful. We're anti-nuclear. We are grass-root oriented. And we are proud of what we have achieved. We are anxious to go on, serving people with important information and skills. We have existed since 1978, in a small office with seven people working at WISE Amsterdam." So effectively a seven-person strong, anti-nuclear lobby group is the sole source and basis within this article for the "claim that (Nuclear Energy) is neither efficient nor effective in cutting CO2 emissions". I move that this is patently a biased source and on this basis alone, the sentence should be struck from the article. Furthermore, the arguments put forward by the source are based on empirical data. This data has probably changed since 1997, the date of publication. 4. However, let's look at what the content of the source says, in order to reinforce the point, rather than simply look at its origin. The main basis of the argument can be found within Charts 1 and 2. The text is mostly just filler. a. Chart 1 Yearly costs to avoid 1000kg of CO2 emissions This table can be split into two halves. The top half could all broadly be termed Energy Conservation. The bottom half - Hydropower, Biomass, Windpower, Nuclear Power, Solar Cells - are all methods of generating electricity on a mass scale. The provided interpretation of Chart 1 is a misnomer if we are comparing Nuclear Power to Energy Conservation alone. On this basis, all methods of electricity generation on the table are by definition less efficient than any method of energy conservation. Simply using less energy will not cost anything. By buying devices such as energy saving lightbulbs to conserve energy, the savings may make up and excede their cost over time. To compare any method of electricity generation to any method of energy conservation is a logical fallacy. What is worse is that the authors only compare Nuclear Power unfavourably, without mentioning Solar, which is worse according to their figures or Wind, which is about the same. Instead they hypothesise that given more investment, the costs for these two methods would fall. Which is the familiar fallacy of equating money injected to innovations extracted which seems to be the average layman's perception of technological change. Assuming that innovation is some reliable machine with direct proportionality between the input of cash and the output of new technologies. This is patently not the case. Furthermore, on a logical basis, since the original statement in the wiki article implies a comparison on current terms, any consideration of future changes does not replace the facts of the "here and now" presented by Chart 1, which are that Nuclear and Wind are comparable and that Solar is worse in CO2 efficiency terms. b. Chart 3 CO2 emissions per method of generation The major problem here is that it even though this is a forward-looking, projection based analysis, it ignores the Nuclear Fuel cycle. Above a certain price level, it becomes more economical to reprocess spent Uranium Fuel into Plutonium for use in Breeder Reactors than to mine more Uranium ore. Thus the Nuclear Fuel cycle starts to close and therefore logically, the efficiency starts to increase. If the authors want to conduct forward-looking assessments they must consider both sides of the coin. That is the major empirical basis of the "claim that (Nuclear Energy) is neither efficient nor effective in cutting CO2 emissions". As can be seen, the analysis conducted is somewhat biased and not very rigorous. 5. This leads me to look at the sources that the underlying source used from a bias point of view. I am not going to drill down into their content also as it is unnecessary. It is the way their data was used in the original article which makes it misleading, rather than the content of the data itself. Chart 1 - German Öko Institute / Centre for Energy Conservation and Clean Technology in Delft From the website of the Öko Institute: "Resistance against the Wyhl nuclear power plant was a common cause uniting all founding members." So another institute founded upon opposition to Nuclear Power predicated upon the view that Nuclear Power is a utilitarian bad for society - a value judgement in and of itself Chart 3 - German Öko Institute among others. Ibid.

In conclusion, I would say that the original source 16 quoted is biased in its purpose and hastily put together, to put it kindly, in its content. Furthermore, the very premise of the claim made in this article is logically flawed. I move that it be struck from the article until it is rephrased to correct the inherent logical fallacy and an unbiased, recognised source can be found as its basis.

Thanks for your time.

--86.142.165.244 (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That is your personal interpretation of the source. The statement in the article is backed by the source. Even if the source is biased, that doesn't mean their information is wrong. You could provide a source which attacks their information, but their information is not being presented as fact in this article. NJGW (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I would hope that you read both the source and my points fully before making your edit and writing your response.

long original research section

As I initially said the source is biased - it is true. They state themselves that their very organisation was set up initially purely to oppose Nuclear Power. Let's leave that to one side however, we could always come back to it later. The crux of my point, leaving aside the bias issue, is three-fold. Firstly, irrespective of your argument that this is presented as a claim, the fact remains that the way the claim is presented is illogical - there is no fair comparator for the claim that "Nuclear Power is neither efficient nor effective in cutting CO2 emissions". A fair comparator should be found or some idea of efficiency viz. inefficiency should be presented, if even from the biased source itself, before re-inserting this part. Without it, it is on the same level as saying something as intellectually vacant as "some people claim that Ferraris are not fast machines". Not exactly the sort of style an Encyclopaedia should be aiming for, especially on a scientific article, would you not agree? Secondly, with respect to your argument, the very empirical information the underlying source uses is being mistreated in what amounts to, if I may say, a misuse of data on a level which is so obvious it it would actually be quite comical if it were where it belonged along with many thousands of other equally lazy special interest group papers. It is a self-contradicting source. Here's why: It makes its supposition that Nuclear Power is inefficient at cutting CO2 emissions by producing a table of data. The data shows "Yearly Costs to Avoid 1000kg of CO2 Emissions". These are divided between Energy Conservation Measures and Energy Production Methods. Nuclear Power is shown to be more efficient than solar power and as efficient as wind power at cutting emissions. However, the only conclusion the article draws is that Nuclear Power is inefficient at cutting CO2 emissions. By your logic, I could equally claim in this article using the same source that "some environmental groups claim Wind and Solar Power are inefficient at cutting CO2 emissions". You can see how this would get a little crazy, no?

Thirdly, there is only one quoted source yet the text reads "but environmental organizations indicate the problems with nuclear waste and claim that this energy is neither efficient nor effective in cutting CO2 emissions, excluding it from clean energy". Why is it pluralised? Surely the text should read something along the lines of "the WISE group, a Dutch anti-nuclear lobby group indicate the problems...".

In conclusion, I can see the point you are trying to raise here is based on one guideline - as a claim, it is not presented as fact. That would be fine for articles dealing with philosophical issues, or political issues or any other number of PURELY normative debates. But we are not discussing ethics here. We are discussing the efficiency of Nuclear Power in cutting CO2 Emissions. We have to hold Scientific articles to a higher level of empirical proof when it comes to "making claims" or worse, "stating beliefs". Science, prima facie, is about the pursuit of absolute truth, not the espousal of circumscribed belief. That way leads to the abuse of Science.

Awaiting your reply with interest.

--86.143.98.152 (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is that this is wp:OR on your part unless you provide a source. NJGW (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(conversation moved to my talk page because it is about a misunderstanding about wiki policies, not about this article)

(conversation moved back here because it is about this article - namely better informing the reading public by increasing the detail of the information provided by the source, and also debating whether the source is reliable or not)

Well, all I can say is...

I'm not doing original research here. If so you would recognise what I have done here is not original research, it is a critique which attempts to show that the emboldened quote mentioned multiple times in this discussion is illogical in a scientific context.

How is the following paragraph, for example, original research? It is not an opinion, it is not speculation, it is not an unpublished fact, it is not an original idea. It is not an analysis. It is simply pointing out a logic problem in a statement. You can't make a statement like x is bad at y in a scientific context without stating compared against z or compared against some generally accepted yardstick. Do you actually have an understanding of logic in a scientific context?

"Firstly, irrespective of your argument that this is presented as a claim, the fact remains that the way the claim is presented is illogical - there is no fair comparator for the claim that "Nuclear Power is neither efficient nor effective in cutting CO2 emissions". A fair comparator should be found or some idea of efficiency viz. inefficiency should be presented, if even from the biased source itself, before re-inserting this part. Without it, it is on the same level as saying something as intellectually vacant as "some people claim that Ferraris are not fast machines". Not exactly the sort of style an Encyclopaedia should be aiming for, especially on a scientific article, would you not agree?"

Also since you seem to be so knowledgeable on the rules of Wikipedia, perhaps you could point me in the direction of the rules for sources. Evidently they cannot just be anything. Ah no wait - I found the relevant part myself: "Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source.". "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.". So you are telling me a 13 year old article by an anti-Nuclear lobby group with a membership of seven is reliable in this context, yes?

--86.143.98.152 (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read wp:OR and wp:SYN, then read what you wrote: "it is a critique which attempts to show that the emboldened quote mentioned multiple times in this discussion is illogical in a scientific context." That's OR, plain and simple. As for RS, the only claim made in the article is that "X group believes Y". Are you saying that this statement isn't true? Because that's all the source is being used for. NJGW (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

1. You don't seem to get the difference between pointing out a logical fallacy and original research unfortunately. Your dogmatic, trite reasoning is that as long as the statement is "X Group believes Y" then it is OK to include 'as is' without any qualifiers which explain in more detail exactly what it is the source is saying.

Your argument is mind-bogglingly prosaic and you have lost sight of the underlying spirit of the rules. What is in fact being done here is a twisting of the underlying source. The underlying source says:

We believe a larger emphasis on energy conservation and more investment in Solar and Wind power would be a more efficient way to cut CO2 emissions than investment in Nuclear Power.

This is the reason for stating:

We believe Nuclear Power is an inefficient way of cutting CO2 emissions.

So "conclusion = a [because] evidence = b". Like any other scientific piece of research, there are conclusions and there is evidence/reasoning providing a basis for those conclusions. Why not include both?

The former is better because it provides more detail. An analogy could be a Wiki article on the Big Bang stating:

"Some scientists believe the Universe will collapse in on itself whereas others believe it will go on expanding forever".

Without any explanation as to WHY they hold that belief in terms of available empirical evidence from either side, or theoretical reasoning behind their belief for theories which are non-falsifiable.

Here's the exact quote from the source itself, did you read it?

"There are ample possibilities (for example in the area of energy savings) that are for the greater part more efficient than extra investment in new (nuclear) capacities."

We are dealing with a scientific article here on a contentious issue, it is true. We cannot start introducing beliefs into scientific articles whilst at the same time stating "Oh, it's OK, we can present contentious beliefs 'as are' without further explanation because they're just beliefs". That would be foolish in that it would set a precedent for lowering the burden of proof for inclusion of beliefs into scientific articles.

2. Then there is the seperate RS issue. I will repeat - I do not disagree with the spirit of what the source says. There is evidence that an emphasis on energy efficiency and more investment in wind and solar, could prove to be more efficient than Nuclear Power in combating CO2 emissions. However, I believe this is not a RS to present this belief.

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."

"Authors generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative."

I don't believe that this WISE group does fulfil those two conditions. Their website contains no information as to who their "experienced" seven person team contains. When organisations do research, especially NGOs not affiliated to trade groups, they will usually have a page listing the bios of their members - what their academic pedigree is, what their past research work has involved, who funded or requested it etc. The WISE group webpage from what I can see contains none of this information. This is out of step with the best-practice of similar NGO, non trade groups in other spheres of interest, such as the internationally recognised, Institute for Fiscal Studies in the UK:

http://www.ifs.org.uk/people

"As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."

This is a seven person team. Not enough in my opinion to be authoritative on such an important issue.

Therefore not RS.

I've got plenty of time to keep going on this but you have backed yourself into a corner and not presented any meaningful evidence to dispute my change. My change is additive - it improves the article and provides more detail, even if the source is not reliable according to the rules. If you get any scientist to look at this discussion they would invariably side with me, whichever side of the "Nuclear Power = Green" debate they were on.

--86.143.98.152 (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Your behaviour is starting to look like borderline edit warring. Your reverts have been combative, constant and may constitute a slow edit war. I am going to try and get a third opinion because:

1. It seems the two of us cannot agree on this.

2. There are not enough other interested editors active on this article to canvass their opinions.

3. It looks to me like you are engaging in trying to Game the System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GAME). In this case by an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy to violate the principles of the policy.

4. The most unfortunate result of 3, in my opinion, is that it has forced a relatively new user (myself) into having to "read up" on all these various Wikipedia policies regarding Dispute Resolution, Gaming, Reverting etc just to try and put in a relatively minor edit which in fact expands the scope of the article and gives that particular sentence which was edited a better context. Unfortunately, the by-product of a trite approach to the rules which you are engaging in (I have learnt this is called wikilawyering) is that it spreads such behaviour by necessity. The only way to deal with legal speak, is with legal speak in return otherwise the individual not using it is at a disadvantage. Trust me, this is not something I enjoy doing. I am far more interested in the underlying science and would much prefer to discuss that instead.

5. Furthermore please stop moving the discussion to your talk page. "The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute." Taken from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Alternatives_and_avoidance).

6. Also, from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Alternatives_and_avoidance) - "Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries: discuss the matter on the article talk page.". This is what you did with your last edit. It is not helpful to do this. A running theme in this dispute has been your refusal to take part in the discussion beyond simply (as I said before) dogmatically quoting the OR rule to me. I believe this is an example of pettifoggery and I disagree that my edit is OR.

Therefore I'm going to make a request for a Third Opinion here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion) as per Wikipedia best practice as the next stage of the process. Until that time please leave my edit as is - it is not vandalism.

To be honest, as the more experienced editor here, I am surprised you have not already suggested this.

--86.143.98.152 (talk) 06:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

I have read through your lengthy argument and this is what I think.

• The fact that some organisations do not count nuclear as green disserves a mention.
• The organisation quoted is a small anti-nuclear lobby group so a better citation would be preferable.
• If 86.143.98.152 presented his/her analysis of a source as an article it would come under WP:NOR. If he/she does it on the talk page of an article that uses the source, that is something totally different. All of us have to analyse what we read if we are going to try to produce something with any meaning.
• The headline claims of the source are "Nuclear power is not efficient" and "Nuclear power is not effective".
• These statements are pretty meaningless out of context so actually reading the source and summarising the basis of the claim is fair. e.g. by adding the phrase "compared to energy conservation methods"

However, more important than any of the above observations...

• Being inefficient or ineffective is not normally considered a disqualification for being "green".
• The WISE source cited does not even use the word "green", or any similar phrase such as "environmentally friendly"
• The WISE source does acknowledge that CO2 emissions can be reduced with Nuclear power. It is just arguing that Nuclear does this in an inefficient and ineffective way.

Therefore it's probably better to stick to the references to waste. Of course, there currently is no citation to the waste claim but I suggest that it should be left in for the moment, perhaps with a request for citation appended. In addition, the phrase "environmental organizations indicate the problems with nuclear waste" is a bit odd. In summary, I think the whole of that paragraph should be replaced with:

Some organizations have specifically classified nuclear power as green energy. Others disagree, stressing problems with nuclear waste.

I hope this helps.

Yaris678 (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I brought in positions from Greenpeace and the Sierra Club which talk about the effectiveness, efficiency and cleanliness of nuclear. The paragraph says they don't consider them clean energy.

NJGW (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the Greenpeace citation fits the bill perfectly. It describes nuclear power as an "unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity". Not so sure about the Sierra Club one. It seems they are not against Nuclear Power per se - but they do think significant changes are required for it to be acceptable.

I don't know why you left in the reference to "efficiency and efficacy". I don't think that gets a mention by the Sierra Club and Greenpeace do think Nuclear is a waste of resouces, but they don't claim that, in itself, makes it non-green. Similarly, I don't know why you left in the citation of WISE.

How about...

Some organizations have specifically classified nuclear power as green energy. Greenpeace disagrees, claiming that nuclear power poses an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity.

Yaris678 (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I left in efficiency and efficacy because these are issues also alluded to by Greenpeace (e.g. "We can reduce carbon emissions much more cheaply and more effectively using renewable energy and energy efficiency measures" from their linked pdf[2]) and others. I left in WISE as an example. I don't think we've established that there is a problem with there presentation, and it outlines the position much more thoroughly than GP. Saying "GP disagrees..." is disingenuous because it makes it appear that only GP disagrees. Nuclear is not considered green by environmental groups. Of course finding a citation for a negative statement is always near impossible. Furthermore, the Cleantech citation in the same paragraph seems more suspect to me than WISE... they're an investment firm probably trying to get nuclear classified as green for $$$ reasons.

NJGW (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Yaris for taking the time to read through (mostly my) reasoning as well as the source in question and for the clarity he has brought to this complex issue. I would expect no less by way of thoroughness from a fellow alumnus ;)

I think the issue here can now be broken down into two separate issues. On the one hand

• "Is Nuclear Power Green?",

and on the other,

• "Is Nuclear Power efficient in cutting CO2 emissions compared to other forms of electricity generation or energy conservation?".

On the first issue there is the balance between Nuclear Power's ability to contribute to cutting CO2 Emissions viz Fossil Fuels - a "green credential", being set against its obvious "non-green credentials" - nuclear waste, the possibility for Chernobyl/Three Mile Island type accidents. This is as I see it, where the real debate is on whether Nuclear Power is green or not. I think Yaris' suggested edit goes a long way to clearing this issue up. Perhaps there should also be a specific mention of Nuclear Power's main green credential - the ability to contribute to the cutting of global CO2 emissions, in addition to any specific mention of the non-green credentials - waste and accidents. Of course both would have to be properly referenced.

On the second issue, do we even want to include it at all in an article on Green Energy? Especially since as you say Yaris, being inefficient does not preclude something from being Green? I would say a better place for an argument on the relative efficiency of Nuclear Power in cutting CO2 Emissions, which is after all just a euphemism for mitigating Global Warming, would be here - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitigation_of_global_warming#Nuclear_power).

Even if the debate is moved to the article I have linked to, as I believe it should, as Yaris notes, any statement on the efficiency or inefficiency of Nuclear Power in cutting CO2 emissions needs to be put in context to have any substantive meaning.

I would agree what Yaris has suggested should go into the article, after all, it should not be too hard to find reliable sources stating the problems inherent with Nuclear Waste.

However, it seems NJGW would prefer to keep pushing his/her own agenda here, even in the face of Yaris' Third Opinion.

NJGW's latest edit, made after Yaris' contribution:

"However, environmental organizations such as Greenpeace[16][17] and the Sierra Club[18] claim that nuclear waste and and questions about the efficiency and efficacy of nuclear power in cutting CO2 emissions[19] preclude them from considering nuclear energy to be a viable option."

1. Firstly and most importantly this is just a rehash of the old edit. It still doesn't put the "questions over the efficiency of Nuclear Power" in any kind of meaningful context - a necessity which both Yaris and I have now concurred on.

2. "Viable option" to what exactly? In achieving what end? Again another statement taken out of context, thereby making it meaningless.

3. This is sloppy and lazy referencing. The Greenpeace "article" referenced here is simply their homepage on their Anti-Nuclear campaign (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear). It does indeed mention Greenpeace's concerns on nuclear waste and nuclear accidents. However, it doesn't specifically and explicitly mention anything about "the efficiency and efficacy of nuclear power in cutting CO2 emissions".

4. Source [18] linked to here in a subsequent edit by NJGW whilst I have been writing this, (http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/briefing-nuclear-not-answer-apr07.pdf) does indeed claim that: "We can reduce carbon emissions much more cheaply and more effectively using renewable energy and energy efficiency measures [than using Nuclear Power]". As you can see, the article does not dispute that Nuclear Power can cut CO2 emissions, it just states that it may be inefficient compared to energy conservation methods, for example. This is what Yaris and I concurred on above.

5. However, these points are immaterial since this isn't even the article for discussing this issue as I mention above. I merely raise them for future reference.

In conclusion, NJGW's latest edit isn't really in keeping with the Third Opinion which was sought by myself and provided by Yaris. Therefore I am going with Yaris on this. I will include the Greenpeace sources as citations of the concerns Environmental Organisations have over the issues of nuclear waste and nuclear accidents. These are as I say, directly related to the concept of "Green Energy". This debate over the efficiency or otherwise of Nuclear Energy in cutting CO2 emissions belongs elsewhere.

--86.139.135.89 (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

NJGW, with the greatest of respect I think you've lost track of where the argument is at and of what Yaris and I are trying to say regarding the "inefficiency of Nuclear in reducing CO2 emissions" debate versus the "Is Nuclear Green?" question. Again, with respect, I suggest you go back over the arguments and read them carefully before editing again. Thanks

--86.139.135.89 (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to further points:

• It is only fair to subject the "Nuclear is green" source to the same level of scrutiny as the "Nuclear is not green" source.
• Unlike the WISE source, the "Nuclear is green" one does actually address the issue of whether or not nuclear is green. However, it is by someone I have never heard of so it may be better to go for someone more familiar to environmentalists, such as James Lovelock.
• I think it is probably true that Greenpeace are not the only environmentalists who think Nuclear is not green. However, it shouldn't be that difficult to find a non-greenpeace source. It doesn't have to say "Nuclear power is not green" - a statement such as "Nuclear power posses an unacceptable risk to the environment" would be just as good.
• I agree with 86.139.135.89 that Mitigation of global warming#Nuclear_power is a better location for the WISE citation.

Yaris678 (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. Perhaps even George Monbiot as well as Lovelock? That famous blog/article in the Guardian a few months ago (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/feb/20/george-monbiot-nuclear-climate) where he came to the conclusion that the green credential of Nuclear (role in cutting CO2 emissions) has outweighed the non-green (waste/accidents).

--86.142.165.82 (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to change the article then? I have tried not to change it myself since I only entered this to give a third opinion. Yaris678 (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made the change myself since 86.142.165.82 seems to have lost interest. Yaris678 (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

How is this different from Sustainable energy and Renewable energy anyway? Aren't they all the same thing? Why have 3 articles? Darx9url (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge - These are essentially the same thing. Nothing is gained by having separate articles. Relevant information that doesn't fit under the eventual article can be merged with sustainability etc. NJGW (talk) 05:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Qualified Merge - These things are different but it might make things neater if they were covered by one article. I would describe the three as follows:
  • Renewable Energy does not rely on a limited fuel. Biomass would be included because new biomass can be grown. Nuclear would not be included - although new fuel can be made through reprocessing, this loop can not continue infinitely.
  • Green Energy this is producing energy in a way that does not harm the environment. Or rather, harms it a lot less than other sources - you can't really eliminate harm completely. This wouldn't include some biomass because of the harm to the environment caused by growing the biomass crop. In contrast, it has been argued that it would include nuclear energy.
  • Sustainable Energy is a much vaguer term. It could be seen as equivalent to renewable energy but sustainability often has a broader definition, which would include not harming the environment.

The obvious question is what to call the merged article. I would say sustainable energy is the best bet. Although I think the term is a bit vague, at least it includes the other two. Yaris678 (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. It is often said that Sustainable energy = renewable energy + energy efficiency, and this is discussed in the Sustainable energy article. Johnfos (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge, but call it either "renewable" or "sustainable". "Green" is underdefined and overused: it implies advertising usage. Rlsheehan (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Yaris has asked me to comment here... Please stick with the original merge proposal: Green energy and Sustainable energy. To try to expand that proposal, after the discussion had already started, to include Renewable energy, is inappropriate, confusing, and misleading. Renewable energy is way too long to be merged anyway, as WP:SIZERULE says that if an article is > 60 KB it probably should be divided. Johnfos (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. There is a lot of confusion here with what the different terms mean etc, and there is a danger that a merge would create a long confused article. Johnfos (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support merge. Johnfos may be right about the confusion, but i think that is exacerbated by maintaining the term "green" energy, which I think is becoming a marketing label, and not a clear conceptual category. Length should not be an issue - the merged article should be edited down in the merging process. If it is still too long, the point is that "Green energy" would not be something you would split part of it into. The main article should be "sustainable energy", which should be a summary of renewable energy, sustainability as applied to energy, a section on energy supply and demand, demand side management (or whatever that is called these days), and a section on "energy sustainability and other energy sources", which would include some text on nuclear energy, clean coal and maybe some other things. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - An alternative approach would be to have a hard headed look at each article and work out what should and shouldn't be in each. For example there is a big part of Sustainable energy called renewable energy technologies. Yaris678 (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support merge. Looking at the page view statistics, over 3,000 people per day view Renewable energy, while Sustainable energy and Green energy each attract around 300 page views per day. This suggests that improving the quality of Renewable energy is the first priority (I note there is no merge tag on that page??). If the main Renewable energy article gets too long, a single sub-article incorporating the best of Sustainable energy and Green energy would be a way of managing this.--Travelplanner (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think Darx9url forgot to add a link to Renewable energy. I added a link myself when I noticed the oversight but Johnfos kept removing it. I tried discussing it with him but he never really gave a good reason for not having the link. See the page history [3] and User talk:Johnfos#Merger. Maybe you should try putting it in yourself... Yaris678 (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please stick with the original merge proposal: Green energy and Sustainable energy. To try to expand that proposal, after the discussion had already started, to include Renewable energy, is inappropriate, confusing, and misleading. Renewable energy is way too long to be merged anyway, as WP:SIZERULE says that if an article is > 60 KB it probably should be divided. Johnfos (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Please see the first line of this section for information on what the original merge proposal was. Yaris678 (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. The original merge tags of August 2 make no mention of Renewable energy, see [4], [5], and this is still the situation with the tags today. Johnfos (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. That is not in dispute. But why go by the merge tags when Darx9url makes her intentions perfectly clear in her opening statement? Obviously, it would be nice if the statement and the tags were consistent, but I had fixed that problem until you until you made them inconsistent again. Yaris678 (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I suggest there is enough support to merge Green energy and Sustainable energy now. See how that goes, and if someone then wants to put up a merge proposal involving Renewable energy that's fine. We can deal with that when it happens and when the appropriate merge tags are in place. Johnfos (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support merger of Sustainable energy and Green energy. Irrespective of our differences about what the original merger suggestion was. We can take both "sustainable" and "green" to mean "environmentally-friendly" or "does less harm to the environment than the alternatives". "Renewable" means something different. "Sustainable" could be taken by some people to mean "renewable" but we can link to Renewable energy from the merged article. I propose that Green energy be the name of the merged article because then it is clearer that we don't mean renewable energy. It has been suggested that "sustainable" is somehow a more respectable term and that "green" is just a marketing term. I would disagree. The word green is a more firmly established short-hand for environmentally friendliness. Hence the numerous green parties advocating green politics. "Sustainable" is a very broad term which could mean environmentally-friendly and could mean many other things. Yaris678 (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

How about merging Sustaianable/renewable enrgy to CLEAN GREEN energy?

Ok, how about merging renewable and sustaianble enrgy (if its NON Polluting) into an article CLEAN GREEN ENERGY Also, no mention of an ongoing "Global Energy Independence Day"(Ref Tesla Society ) Held every year on the great energy pioneer Nikola Teslas birthdate Jul.10th Nikola Tesla(1856-1943) To encourage, support and promote CLEAN GREEN ENERGY! Thanks!IMPVictorianus (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• No. "Clean Green Energy" sounds like an attempt at a slick advertising campaign. It has no working definition. And also, ALL energy is polluting to some degree. Rlsheehan (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• No. Agree with Rlsheehan. Previous discussion had some more promising leads. I liked the point about which article was getting the hits, and that we should focus on that. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)