Talk:Renewable energy commercialization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Energy
Energy Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high importance within energy.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Good article GA rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
Good article Renewable energy commercialization has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
August 11, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

[edit] GA Hold

A few minor issues:

  • MOS issue: The title of the article should appear in the lead bolded, preferably in the first sentance, and doubly-preferably as the first words of the article. This needs fixing.
  • A few stats have unclear sources, especially in places where specific powerplants power ratings are quoted:
    • "In many northern European countries, combined hot water and space heating systems (solar combisystems) are used to provide 15 to 25% of home heating energy (see Solar hot water article)." Contains a stat of unclear source; also while we are at it, don't put "see also" statements in the body. Use the template at the start of the section, such as {{details}} or {{see also}}...
    • "Other large photovoltaic power stations, which have been proposed or are under construction, include: the Girrasol solar power plant (62 MW), Waldpolenz Solar Park (40 MW), and the Nellis Solar Power Plant (15 MW)." no source for stats.
    • "Enercon, based in Aurich, Northern Germany, is the third-largest wind turbine manufacturer in the world and the market leader in Germany. As of April 2007 Enercon had installed 11,006 wind turbines, with an overall power of 11,703 GW. Their most-often installed model is the E-40 (the number indicates the rotor diameter in meters), which pioneered the gearbox-less design in 1992. Enercon has production facilities in Germany, Sweden, Brazil, India and Turkey." No reference, makes challengable superlative claims (third largest? market leader? according to whom? needs ref)
  • As an aside, based on the prior note, be VERY careful about the section on leading companies. This section looks well referenced now, but it could easily be open to abuse. Not really a GA issue, but just something to watch out for.

Fix that one MOS issue and find those references, and this article will be promoted as a GA. The hold will expire in 1 week; if the changes are not made it will have to fail (which would be a shame, since it is very close to passing)... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing. I have made improvements as per your suggestions. Please see what you think. -- Johnfos 04:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. I will add the article to the GA list now. Consider taking this to peer review if you are preparing to eventually bring the article to FA status. I can tell you that the writing will need some work in places to raise it from GA to FA status, but this article is a VERY good start towards becoming an FA. Good Job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit help...

The article does look much improved from even the last time I saw it. This is becoming a good article. A user on my talk page left a request to copyedit this article. Unfortunately, as far as writing goes I am really a diner and not a chef; I know when my food tastes bad but I couldn't cook it better myself. I will contact Awadewit, one of the better copyeditors here at Wikipedia and someone who has done wonders for my articles. She may also appreciate if the editors of this article contact her directly. She is often quite busy, but also does some requests. You can also try to post the article for review from the League of Copyeditors who are quite good. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I've been asked to copy edit this article, so I'm starting to do so. Please alert me to any mistakes that I introduce into the article, so I don't make the same mistake in the future. I will leave internal questions and comments inside the article at times when I don't understand something. These are best viewed with wikEd or some other program that color codes edit types. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 06:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy editing questions and other comments

  • Renewable energy commercialization involves a broad, diverse array of technologies, including solar photovoltaics, solar thermal power plants, solar heating and cooling systems, wind power, hydroelectricity, geothermal, biomass, and ocean energy systems. - It seems to me that this sentence is missing something. It makes more sense without the word "commercialization" but the page is supposed to be about "renewable energy commercialization" specifically, so perhaps another phrase could be added? Awadewit | talk 06:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Awadewit, have revised the lead in the light of your comments. Hope it is an improvement. Johnfos 03:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Is this page in AE or BE? "commercialization" led me to think AE, but then I saw "programme".... Awadewit | talk 08:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that a clearer distinction needs to be drawn between PV cells and solar thermal energy. It is not clear to me right now exactly what that distinction might be. Awadewit | talk 05:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Have added some clarification in the photovoltaics section. Johnfos 10:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that the list of companies is necessary. It looks like an advertisement right now. Why not just mention them when discussing which products they produce in the previous sections? Or perhaps a small list of links entitled "Leading renewable energy companies" at the end of the article? Awadewit | talk 05:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Commercialization of renewables involves both the private sector and the public sector, and I've tried to discuss both in this article. I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of giving these companies less space, as I think the article would become unbalanced. Johnfos 08:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, then, more could be added to each company's section (one- and two-line sections are discouraged). A fuller explanation would itself make an argument for the sections' inclusion. Awadewit | talk 05:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I will work towards that. Johnfos 05:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I noticed that the "Non-technical barriers to acceptance" section is based on a US source. Since energy is a world-wide thing, shouldn't we have a more diversified source pool? Awadewit | talk 06:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, good point. Have located a UN source and added it. Johnfos 10:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • With such a wide range of non-technical barriers, there is no silver bullet solution to drive the transition to renewable energy. So there is a need for several different types of policy instruments to overcome different types of barriers and complement each other. - Is this too POV for the article? Awadewit | talk 06:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not unusual in the literature on technological change to talk about "no silver bullet solution", but have softened the wording a little. Johnfos 10:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
But surely there are critics of this kind of technology and its commercialization? My point is that this kind of language is not very neutral and it does not really concede the existence of other viewpoints. Awadewit | talk 10:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I probably haven't made myself clear here... To say that renewable energy is not a silver bullet is to concede the point that other technologies also have an important role to play. So I see this perspective as actually accomodating the views of any critics. Johnfos 11:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Public policy has a role to play because the free market system has some fundamental limitations. - Has a role to play in what? Awadewit | talk 06:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Have clarified this. Johnfos 11:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of "Shifting subsidies" feels POV to me. Awadewit | talk 06:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there a particular sentence that is a problem? Johnfos 11:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It is really that entire paragraph. If you don't think so, feel free to solicit other opinions. Such things are very subjective, I know. Awadewit | talk 01:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added this sentence, which I think provides some useful context: "The Stern Review explains that of 20 key innovations from the past 30 years, only one of the 14 they could source was funded entirely by the private sector and nine were totally funded by the public sector.[57]" Johnfos 21:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • While some leading industrial countries have been reducing subsidies to fossil fuels, most notably coal, the United States has been increasing its support for the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. - "increasing support" is vague - do you have any numbers for this as you do in the previous paragraphs? Awadewit | talk 06:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
No numbers as yet, but will keep working on it.Johnfos 11:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of "Investment trends" is too vague - what governments? what sectors? what regions? The entire section feels a bit stubby, like it's missing information. Awadewit | talk 06:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the Investment trends section needs to be expanded. Is there anyone else who would care to help with this? Johnfos 00:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If you want to go for FAC eventually, you will need to format your footnotes according to the WP:MOS. There is not enough information there right now. Awadewit | talk 06:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy for the article to stay at GA level, but if a keen editor (who is good with reference formatting) wants to take the article further, that's fine too. Johnfos 00:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, Awadewit, for your helpful comments and questions. They have helped me get enthusiastic about the article again and have resulted in considerable improvements. Johnfos 11:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)