This is an archive of past discussions about Sustainable energy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I just removed In 2016 the IEA said that moving to sustainable energy would have a total net benefit of trillions of dollars due to reducing air pollution costs.[1]. I don't have access to the full source, but this summary of the report doesn't mention trillions in net benefit so I am concerned. Could someone please provide the relevant quote and page # from the report? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
This is the source found by Chidgk1 that I had also linked above: [5]. Even for US only the benefit is 2 trillion dollars per year
"The US EPA has made an assessment of the costs and benefits of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990: costs were around $380 billion, while the cumulative net benefits were valued at $12 trillion, over the period 1990-2020 (in 2006 dollars) (US EPA, 2011). These net benefits are derived mainly from the prevention of premature deaths as a result of improvements in ambient PM; by 2020, the 230 000 avoided PM related deaths in that year account for about 85% of monetised annual net benefits of $2 trillion" p. 128
"Investment in the Clean Air Scenario includes an extra $2.3 trillion in advanced pollution control technologies (two-thirds of this to comply with higher vehicle emissions standards) and $2.5 trillion in a more rapid transformation of the energy sector. The resultant benefits are many times more valuable" p16
Thanks for these details. I think the sentence I removed is not a good summary of the source, and we should leave it out. For one thing, the source describes a model, the IEA's Clean Air Scenario, that involves many measures and I wouldn't really call it moving to sustainable energy. More importantly, the "economic benefits" that the report describes are basically a translation of healthier/longer lives into dollar figures using math formulas such as the value of a statistical life, yielding numbers like "1000 lives saved = $2 billion in economic benefits". Economic benefits calculated this way are not saved healthcare costs and don't directly go back to the government.
When reporting on the benefits of implementing a policy, it would be wrong to say "This policy would cost $1 billion to implement, save 1000 lives, and yield $2 billion in benefits" because that would be counting benefits twice. It would be accurate to say "This policy would cost $1 billion to implement and yield $2 billion in benefits", which makes sense to other policy wonks. Or you could say "This policy would cost $1 billion to implement and save 1000 lives", which makes a lot more sense to the general reader and involves fewer assumptions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I just removed In 2020 Greenpeace estimated worldwide damages from fossil fuel air pollution at $2.9 trillion annually or $8 billion a day.[1]. This is a health claim that requires wp:MEDRS sourcing. Even if it were not a health claim, I don't think any activist sources should be used in this article at all. If readers want Greenpeace's POV they know where to find it; we can serve the reader best by summarizing the high-quality sources that most readers can't access or can't understand. The moment we mention Greenpeace we are going to lose credibility for some readers, and we are also going to open a door for other activist sources who are both for and against clean energy. Let's also keep in mind that readers come to this particular article because they are interested in solutions to the energy problem. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree and think it's a relatively clear-cut issue. Industry (pro their business) and activist sources should not be used, unless really really really necessary. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
OECD has more info:
"The annual global welfare costs associated with the premature deaths from outdoor air pollution, calculated using estimates of the individual willingness-to-pay to reduce the risk of premature death, are projected to rise from USD 3 trillion in 2015 to USD 18-25 trillion in 2060. In addition, the annual global welfare costs associated with pain and suffering from illness are projected to be around USD 2.2 trillion by 2060, up from around USD 300 billion in 2015, based on results from studies valuating the willingness-to-pay to reduce health risks" p.1Bogazicili (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Is there a neutral source for health costs due to unsustainable energy?
Of course you are right that neutral sources are best. But unfortunately, as far as I know, the OECD has not estimated how much of that USD 3 trillion is due to fossil fuels. Obviously some is due to tyre wear and brake dust from cars and other non-fossil sources. But also obviously the health costs of fossil fuels must be high enough to justify being in the lead of this article. Does anyone know a neutral source for just the health costs of unsustainable energy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 (talk • contribs)
In the section above titled "Air pollution $ from IEA", I explain why I don't think it's appropriate to have these kinds of cost estimates in the article. The general reader expects \ dollar amounts to be used for things that are bought and sold in everyday life, not for things like life expectancy. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Clarify the relationships to "clean energy" and clean fuel?
I see this has briefly been discussed before but then abandoned because no references have been found yet. I think we need to dig deeper though. I think it's important that we explain how sustainable energy is the same or different from clean energy. After all, clean energy redirects to here which seems to indicate it's the same thing. If it's the same, we should say so. If not, then we should say so as well. I wonder whether clean energy should possibly redirect to clean fuel? Is that maybe more how the term is being used? I looked at this monitoring report for SDG 7 and am finding the term "clean fuel" mentioned far more often than "clean energy": https://trackingsdg7.esmap.org/data/files/download-documents/2019-Tracking%20SDG7-Full%20Report.pdf And that's even though SDG 7 is about "access to clean energy". Interestingly, the SDG 7 wording (i.e. the UN speech) for SDG 7 is "Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all". Some of the targets talk about clean energy, others talk about sustainable energy (is that on purpose or a coincidence?). - I have also reached out to some experts from Energypedia who can perhaps shed light on the issue. EMsmile (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The reason we left this out is that we can't find a good source on it. We found it very difficult to find a good definition of sustainable energy, and clean energy is a more wishy-washy word. If you can find a good source that explicitly talks about the difference, that would be most welcome. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
OK, I'll take up the challenge to hunt something down. There's got to be something, even if it's only grey literature or websites to start with. I asked the question on a discussion forum that I belong to and yesterday Lisa from Energypedia responded, see here. I'll follow up with her to see if she has any references in mind that could be used as citations for her statements. Her statements match well with how the article is written so far. Perhaps this is slightly different and needs further exploring: "The WHO has developed guidelines for clean energy fuels in the household energy sector, which are defined by their emission rates. Usually, gaseous fuels such as LPG, biogas, or ethanol as well as solar are considered clean fuels as they emit very little or no emissions and pollutants. Again, they don't need to be "renewable" also fossil fuels qualify as "clean" energy. And depending on the dimension of sustainability you are looking at, clean energy can be sustainable but doesn't have to." "Dimensions of sustainability" is probably a key concept here and not yet explained in our article.EMsmile (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
P.S. I noticed that the term "sustainability" appears three times in our article but is not wikilinked once. Is that on purpose? The Wikipedia article sustainability needs quite a lot of work (anyone keen to join me there?) but nevertheless it deserves to be wikilinked. EMsmile (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I completely agree with Lisa's post from Energypedia. The term "clean fuel" is used much more narrowly than "clean energy". We don't have to define clean energy in this article, so I would want to include definitions only if they come from a high-quality source. I agree sustainability should be wikilinked. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Can we add that into the lead, into this sentence: "Costs of wind, solar, and batteries have fallen rapidly and are projected to continue falling due to innovation and economies of scale."
Eg:
"Costs of wind, solar, and batteries have fallen rapidly and are projected to continue falling due to innovation and economies of scale; as of 2020, in most countries, photovoltaic solar and onshore wind are cheapest forms of building new electricity-generating plants.[6]" Bogazicili (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Not sure where to add this into the body of the article by the way. The Renewable energy sources section overall summary paragrah is pretty short. Maybe we can repeat the same information twice in solar and wind subsections or there could be more about the overall growth of renewable in the summary paragraph. Bogazicili (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I think the overall sumamry paragraph would be a good place to put it (with the language corrections from CC). The lede is now sufficiently large, and I don't want to get a repetition of climate change, where the lead is not that nice to read, due to the fact it is so condensed and long. Not a fan of putting this in the lede. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
When MEDRS may not be needed
It's occurred to me that we might not need to apply the WP:MEDRS guidesline to sources as strictly as I had thought. I asked for opinions on a couple of possible sources at the WikiProject Medicine talk page, which is the usual place for asking about MEDRS, and you can see the discussion here (permalink).
The crux of the issue is that there are two types of studies that link energy use to health effects. Studies that look at the effects of air pollution on the body are biomedical science and require MEDRS sourcing. However, studies that trace the sources and movements of known pollutants are environmental science. It appears we don't have to exclude every source that doesn't comply with MEDRS, although it's generally a good practice to base the article on the types of sources that would comply with MEDRS anyway. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree that sticking to secondary scholarly sources is generally a good idea for this article even when it's not required by site-wide policies and guidelines. But I'm not sure yet whether we should say "no primary sources in this article, ever" or if we should give ourselves some wiggle room to cite a primary source occasionally. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Most of the article does not fall under MEDRS, so we could have to occasional primary source, but in my experience they do not work well for overview topics as this, as most new research is too specific, and it's easy to give it undue weight. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I recently looked at the article low-carbon economy and I felt there was significant overlap with our article. Up until now, we hadn't even mentioned the term "low-carbon economy" and the other article hardly mentioned "sustainable energy". I would like to propose that we try to "sync" the two articles. With that I mean: reduce overlap, refer to each other where it makes sense and ensure they are in line and don't contradict each other. That other article has lower view rates so far but I can imagine that they will go up in future. EMsmile (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm actually quite surprised how little overlap there is between the two articles. I'm not familiar with the literature on low carbon economy, but if sources about that talk more about sustainable energy, it would be good to integrate that better. It's a low quality article, so it should be easy to improve. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Air pollution mortality and income
As you can see in Talk:Sustainable energy/Air pollution statistics, most sources say that air pollution deaths are concentrated in "low and middle income" countries, not "middle income countries". I will remove the sentence that says, "Death rates dues to pollution are higher in middle-income countries; these rates fall in higher-income countries with decreasing air pollution and access to better healthcare." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I just added another source. Also another article I didn't add as it's a primary source:
I agree with Bogazicili and Clayoquot that unmitigated is the wrong word (in "A targeted shift towards sustainable energy sources would reduce the millions of annual deaths caused by air pollution from the unmitigated burning of fossil fuels and biomass"), as this is typically associated with climate change mitigation, which is not what is meant. You want to capture the idea of not having ventilation or scrubbers or other air pollution measures. I don't think the idea is necessary, and I can't of an easy way to express the idea in one word. That word is not used in the sources. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I am fine with a different word, but we must say something. The dramatic progress in resolving pollution deaths in high-income countries demonstrates that it is not fossil fuels that cause pollution deaths, but rather the lack of air quality regulations. Efbrazil (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
What the sentence says is "A targeted shift towards sustainable energy sources...". Anyone reading that is going to think that means shifting away from fossil fuels. And they should- fossil fuels are not sustainable, because of climate change, but not because of pollution they emit, which can be controlled.
Please let's focus on consensus here. How about swapping "unmitigated" with "poorly controlled emissions from "? Efbrazil (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Although slightly better, my association with the word emissions is greenhouse gas emissions. It also doesn't address Bogazicili is concerned that this idea is not present in the source. I think with the addition of biomass, we don't claim that's just moving away from fossil fuels. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
We are effectively claiming it is necessary to change the fuel source to eliminate pollution deaths, which is false. I understand some sources will make the same error of ignoring pollution controls as it does not fit their narrative, but we should not, we should instead look at multiple sources and be concerned with expressing what's true.
To try another wording, how about we go from "caused by air pollution from the unmitigated burning of fossil fuels and biomass" to "caused by uncontrolled air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass" Efbrazil (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
That is another improvement, but the main objection stands: you're making a narrative out of data, instead of finding a high-quality reliable source with this narrative.
Poorly controlled was better wording, as I cannot imagine that any air pollution is completely uncontrolled.
I'll swap unmitigated for poorly controlled. While we aren't explicitly saying the fuel source must change, I think virtually every reader will interpret the sentence that way. Efbrazil (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Efbrazil, re: "We are effectively claiming it is necessary to change the fuel source to eliminate pollution deaths, which is false" - No. It's your belief that is false. In rich countries as well as poor, people are still dying in large numbers from vehicle tailpipe emissions and coal burning when these emissions are already "controlled". The WHO says that kerosene is unsafe for household use and that no widely-available biomass stoves meet its emission limits. The fact that emissions controls have reduced the health burden of fossil fuels is something that can be mentioned in the body of the article but it is too much weight for the lead. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
As documented, air pollution in Britain and the United States is orders of magnitude better than it was a few decades ago. You show me a source saying air pollution kills millions per year in countries with modern pollution controls, then we can put a statement in to that effect. Otherwise, you are committing WP:Original Research to the lede. Efbrazil (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I see you have reverted again, made a strawman argument, and stated that if I don't supply a source for something I didn't say, I am committing original research. Hmmm. Meanwhile, you have made the utterly preposterous claim that changing energy sources is unnecessary in order to eliminate pollution deaths, and haven't supplied a source to support it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Here's the issue in layman's terms as I understand it:
1) Higher income countries switched to both better emission standards and lower fossil fuels share, improving outcomes
2) However, fossil fuel pollution still causes deaths and economic damages to high income countries
"Air pollution kills around 200,000 Americans each year even when pollution levels remain below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's current guidelines, a report published in JAMA Network Open has found." [7]
"This has serious consequences on people’s health and mortality: in the EU, estimates attribute between 168 000 and 346 000 deaths to air pollution from fine particles (PM2.5) alone in 2018. The welfare losses from air pollution are substantial. A conservative estimate of the welfare impact of PM2.5 and ozone shows that this amounts to an annual loss of 4.9% of GDP in the EU. This welfare loss is mainly attributable to the impact of these pollutants on mortality, along with lower quality of life, lower labour productivity and higher spending on health." OECD
3) Lower-income countries can directly switch to renewable sources, given solar is cheaper than coal now, and they don't have to suffer negative health outcomes.
As such I don't currently see any original research. However, while emission standards improve outcomes, it is OR to say "mitigated" fossil fuels (and mitigated here does not even make sense as a word) are "safe". But the issue can be explained further in the body of the article; that air pollution deaths have decreased in developed countries but they still cause deaths and damages which can be further reduced by phasing out fossil fuels. Bogazicili (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Again, poorly controlled is OR too. Does US and EU have poorly controlled air pollution standards? "A targeted shift towards sustainable energy sources" would still save lives in those regions. Bogazicili (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
1) true, and to be clear, by orders of magnitude, not just a little bit
2) half true. As documented, air pollution in the United states is only half caused by fossil fuels, so you need to cut the death numbers you are reporting in roughly half (assuming that deaths linearly correlate to pollution levels). Again, we are doing a lot of OR when we are making these connections.
3) unclear- renewables can be cheaper while producing, but deployment requires dealing with all the intermittency and grid issues. Emerging markets are still choosing fossil fuels- why do you think that is? I have not seen numbers detailing time to deploy and net cost to deploy renewables vs fossil fuels in emerging markets, but my reading of the numbers is that on a cost / benefit basis fossil fuels are still making sense the majority of the time.
4) I'm definitely not arguing with "save lives", I'm arguing with the implication that we must shift to renewables to save "millions of lives".
I believe "poorly controlled" reflects the source materials. If that is not your reading of the source materials that's OK, that means we don't have consensus. I just cut the sentence out for now. Efbrazil (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
We have rough consensus for inclusion. We have accommodated your points by talking explicitly about biomass and not mentioning a specific amount of people dying. Removing it altogether also moves further away from the old status quo, which would be the correct place to revert back to if you believe there is no consensus.
It seems that all of us disagree with your reading of what the sentence implies: that there are no other ways of saving lives than to shift to sustainable forms of energy. Most people don't live in the US or the EU, so it would be more of an issue if we focus too much on those numbers. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Femke, I have not seen anyone else back your view that the sentence doesn't imply a shift away from fossil fuels is necessary. Of course there are other ways of saving lives- everyone could wear N95 masks, or move away from polluted areas, but those are impractical solutions. We have a proven system for saving the vast majority of lives from pollution, and that's controlling emissions. I don't see why we should obscure that fact. Efbrazil (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
@Efbrazil: that is four (partial) reverts in 24 hours, with three different people objecting to the specific part of the temporary compromise option H. Please revert yourself. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The initial text we all agreed on is what is there now, so the reverts / partial reverts did not start with me. Efbrazil (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
To remind you, what you're referring to as the initial text is what we agreed on as interim wording without prejudice to future improvement. This was an interim solution to stabilize the article which was in the middle of a GA review and to avoid the embarrassing situation of having the lead seem to forget to mention millions of people dying (because you edit-warred out all mention of these millions of people from the lead). After a lot of discussion over the past few days, three editors out of the four who have expressed an opinion believe the sentence would be improved by removing the word "unmitigated". There is a new consensus and you have no right to block it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
FYI for everyone, I have filed a report at the Edit warring noticeboard regarding Efbrazil's editing. Back to the content issues: I think there is some misunderstanding around Bogadicili's assumption #3. Some editors are conflating sustainable energy with renewable energy. Remember, biomass is renewable most of the time, but household use of biomass for cooking and lighting is highly unsustainable because (among other issues) it kills people in droves. When the sources talk about saving lives by shifting to sustainable energy sources, they are not necessarily talking about shifting to renewables in all cases. I have replaced "shift to sustainable energy sources" with "shift to cleaner energy sources". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The crazy thing is that Clayoquot says that we must shift energy sources to save millions, and Femke is saying the existing wording doesn't say that we need to shift energy sources. I think that points towards the underlying confusion here. I don't think reverting a sloppy edit that goes away from painfully arrived at consensus wording qualifies as "warring", but I replied on the admin board.
Anyhow, I think the essence of the dispute is in this reversion: [8]. If we are to resolve this appropriately then I think an RfC around the "poorly controlled" text is appropriate. Does that work for you Clayoquot? I am happy to argue for "poorly controlled" if Clayoquot argues against it. Does that sound like a solution? Efbrazil (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
So where's this non-"poorly controlled" fossil fuels? In developed countries? Are we saying eastern North America and Europe are not developed?
"More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested, according to new research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London. Researchers estimated that exposure to particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions accounted for 18 percent of total global deaths in 2018 — a little less than 1 out of 5.
Regions with the highest concentrations of fossil fuel-related air pollution — including Eastern North America, Europe, and South-East Asia — have the highest rates of mortality, according to the study published in the journal Environmental Research." [9]
The current text also says "A targeted shift to cleaner energy sources would also reduce the millions of annual deaths caused by air pollution". This is backed by sources. Whereas I haven't seen any sources for your counter claims (eg: outcomes if everyone wore N95 masks).
Is there any source saying "controlled" fossil fuel burning is equivalent to "cleaner energy sources" (current wording in text) in terms of health outcomes? However, not all fossil fuels are also the same. For example coal is much worse. Maybe we can say something to this effect in the lead as well?
"A targeted shift to cleaner energy sources would also reduce the millions of annual deaths caused by air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass. Places with higher share of coal usage would see the highest health and economic benefits as a result of climate policies and renewable energy deployment." [10]Bogazicili (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
By the way I have 2 more sources I'll add into the lead (running low on time now). I think this is why sources are important , since Efbrazil is basically arguing over adding something with no sources.
"Renewable energy sources used in energy generation helps to reduce greenhouse gases which mitigates climate change, reduce environmental and health complications associated with pollutants from fossil fuel sources of energy. " review article
Anyone saying I'm making claims without sources hasn't read the section on government policy and air pollution. I am leaning on the analysis from ourworldindata.org, which is a secondary source drawing from multiple primary sources, and I am trusting their non-ideological synthesis. I am open to a better secondary source.
The upshot of the numbers there is that if you compare pollution numbers between developed economies with pollution controls like the US and Western Europe, air pollution death rates are about 1/3rd to 1/4th that of countries without modern controls like China, India, and South Asia: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/outdoor-pollution-death-rate?tab=chart
Further, it's unclear if a majority of the residual pollution in developed economies even comes from fossil fuels.
The key issue here is the complete omission of air pollution controls from the lede, which comes across as pure ideological bias. Saying "poorly controlled" does not mean that renewables can't be used to reduce pollution deaths, it just means that the problem of air pollution is not just one of fuel source, but also one of air pollution controls, as reflected in the content of the article. Omitting that information is selective ideological bias. Efbrazil (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
You have made your point. Please stop WP:Bludgeoning the discussion and start an RfC if you want a broader input. To me, it seems like your using the data from our world in data, and putting your own twist on it (attributing the difference to pollution controls, without much regard for the health differences between developed and developing countries). FemkeMilene (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
We can add something about emission controls, but you haven't shown a source saying emission controls = cleaner energy sources in terms of health outcomes. Also I cited bunch of sources that contradict ourworldindata with respect to rates. ourworldindata is mainly a visualization site. They just find 2 numbers and visualize it with explaining the difference. Bogazicili (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Here's a compromise offer, feel free to improve wording:
"A targeted shift to cleaner energy sources would also reduce the millions of annual deaths caused by air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass.[3] Governments use several policies to achieve these goals. In addition to policies such as carbon pricing and a phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies, policies that include investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency standards would avoid pollutant emissions while policies such as fossil fuel pollution regulations reduce impact of these types of emissions."
per:
"Air pollutants arising from human activity overwhelmingly derive from energy production and use, mainly the combustion of fossil fuels and biomass." p19
"Policies that avoid pollutant emissions, either because energy services are provided more efficiently or because they are provided in a way that does not involve the combustion of fuels. Examples include:
Efficiency policies including, in the buildings, industry and transport sectors,minimum energy performance standards for lighting, fans, air conditioners,industrial boilers, electric motors, cars, trucks and so on.4 Policies that deliver process improvements or materials savings in industry have a similar impact. In developing countries, this category includes policies to promote the use of more efficient biomass cookstoves to reduce household air pollution.
Policies promoting renewable sources of energy, such as feed-in tariffs or technology-specific auctions that promote the deployment of wind or solar power. This category also includes energy access policies based on renewables,such as programmes to provide solar cookstoves or solar lighting.
Improvements to transport networks and urban planning that lead to less reliance on individual vehicles, whether through better provision of public transport,measures that allow for more journeys to be taken on foot or by bicycle, or those that shift freight transport off the roads and onto rail or waterborne transport.
Policies that reduce the impact of the combustion of fuels and energy-related processes, either through mandatory standards limiting pollutant concentrations in the flue gas (so encouraging the uptake of emissions control technologies) or through measures that otherwise dilute their impact once emitted or encourage a switch to combustion of a less-polluting fuel.5 Examples include:
Industrial and power sector emissions standards that limit the pollution that an individual source or plant can emit during combustion or the energy-consuming process, or mandate a control technology that must be used. Examples of this type of regulation include specific emissions limits for power plants or specific industrial facilities, e.g. the European Union’s Large Combustion Plant Directive(2001) and the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010).6
Regulations on stack height or improved ventilation (for household air pollutants),that dilutes the concentrations of pollutants reaching people’s lungs." p 60
It's from 2016 but it's also a special issue, so not an annual one. I just realized the following sentence has some of the same content. And the previous sentence talks about Paris agreement. So modified the proposal a bit. It's not as crisp as before so feel free to modify the wording. I'm just trying to clarify the avoid vs reduce idea in the lead, since we've been discussing it a lot. Bogazicili (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I think the "reduce" vs "avoid" distinction you've made is a useful one for us to keep in mind as we're choosing words. I'm not sure if we need to explicitly teach the concepts to a general audience or use these concepts as a primary method of organizing information. But I like the direction you're going in and very much appreciate your attempt at finding compromise. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Here's another useful source which draws somewhat different conclusions from the IEA report on air pollution: First WHO Global Conference on Air Pollution and Health – summary report (2018). It gives very little weight to emissions controls and enormous weight to avoiding emissions. The second bullet point is "Massively implement solutions to burn less in any form. This includes open burning, and fuel burning in transport, cooking, heating and in other processes. Implement cleaner and more efficient energy and transport solutions. Redesign cities around less fossil-fuel burning and less polluting human mobility. Enhance walking and cycling. Develop circular economies based on maximizing value of, and recovering and regenerating products and materials as much as possible. Aim for zero-emission solutions." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The current structure of our Government policies section gives the impression that governments have one set of policies for climate, one set of policies for air pollution, and one set of policies for energy security. The realization just hit me that this is the wrong impression to be giving: In many cases, policies aim to solve multiple problems. E.g. municipal transportation policies might encourage cycling and public transit in order to meet climate goals, improve health, and reduce dependence on foreign oil at the same time. Climate policies almost always have co-benefits in terms of reducing air pollution.
Globally-focused sources place very strong emphasis on accelerating the deployment of clean cooking solutions in low-income countries, but our Government policies section doesn't yet mention these efforts.
No sources that I'm aware of attempt to count the number of air pollution deaths from "unmitigated" or "poorly-controlled" fuel use. There are lots of sources on outdoor air pollution deaths, indoor air pollution deaths, coal emission deaths, cooking emission deaths, and other categories. There are quality sources that attribute declines in some of these categories to specific efforts that include pollution controls. The absence of "unmitigated" as a statistical category may have something to do with the fact that mitigation is a spectrum, and humans have been mitigating pollution since we discovered fire. If you open a window in your house when you're cooking, that is mitigation.
Shifting to cleaner energy sources is one way to reduce the health burden of energy-related air pollution. Energy conservation, e.g. cycling instead of driving, is another big one. Moving pollution sources away from population centres works (as for moving polluting industries to other countries, some people benefit but on a global level it doesn't work). Pollution controls also work.
For the contested sentence in the lead, I propose that we simply state that "The burning of fossil fuels and biomass causes millions of deaths each year". Take out the whole "shifting to cleaner energy sources thing" because changing energy sources isn't the only solution. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for delving deep into the sources. I'm okay with that wording, but this framing definitely makes it part of the "problem statement", which is now merged into the first paragraph. It doesn't fit into the solution statement any more. A bit more tweaking may be necessary to make it fit into that paragraph. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Pollution controls work, but they only work to a degree. Pollution is still a big problem in terms of human lives and economic impacts in developed counties. I think we can explain this better in the body of the article. For the lead, we can also consider changing the order of sentences (below is same as lead except order):
"The Paris Agreement to limit climate change and the United Nation's Sustainable Development Goals aim for a rapid transition to sustainable energy. Governments use several policies to achieve these goals, such as energy efficiency standards, carbon pricing, fossil fuel pollution regulations, investments in renewable energy, and a phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies. A targeted shift to cleaner energy sources would also reduce the millions of annual deaths caused by air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass.[footnote here and sources][we can also consider adding economic savings]"
This is a completely correct sentence, as air quality improvements and reduction in pollution deaths are given as "co-benefits" in countless number of sources (we can also consider introducing that specific term "co-benefit" somewhere in the article). I bolded fossil fuel pollution regulations because I'm not sure if it's considered part of transition to sustainable energy. At the end of the last we can add a footnote explaining what I call avoid vs reduce, mention pollution controls etc. And we can explain this more in depth in the body of the article. What do you guys think? We can also consider adding potential savings at the very end "while saving trillions of dollars" Bogazicili (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
That's a good point - fossil fuel pollution regulations are not necessarily helpful to achieve the Paris goals (when they are helpful, it's by making fossil fuel use more expensive). We could reword the start of the sentence to "Governments use several policies to promote more sustainable use of energy..." to make it more accurate. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I think we're getting close. I'm going to do a bit more fact-checking on my proposed sentence ""The burning of fossil fuels and biomass causes millions of deaths each year" - I want to see how other general sources handle this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Based on what I read you can say something like "outdoor air pollution, mainly caused by using fossil fuels and biomass, causes millions of premature deaths each year" Bogazicili (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience everyone. I've compiled quotes from some general secondary sources at Talk:Sustainable energy/Air pollution statistics. The total number of air pollution deaths (both indoor and outdoor) causes between "nearly 5 million" and 7 million deaths per year, depending on the source. The WHO's most recent estimate is 7 million and very widely quoted. The secondary sources don't say exactly how much outdoor air pollution is energy-related, however they clearly say in various ways that fossil fuels and biomass are major contributors. The sources agree that indoor air pollution from cooking (mostly biomass, some fossil fuels ) kills millions each year.
I think a very safe way to summarize all this for the lead would be, "The burning of fossil fuels and biomass is a major contributor to air pollution, which causes an estimated 5–7 million deaths each year." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Update: The State of Global Air source that estimated air pollution deaths at 5 million in its 2019 edition now gives an estimate of 6.75 million deaths in its 2020 edition. I will say only 7 million as it seems a bit silly to say 6.75–7 million. With current energy policies and trends, the numbers are expected to keep going up. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Swap images in the lead?
I'd like to swap the two images in the lead so that the template comes second. Otherwise, the search result's image for any article that has that template would always be the windmill picture from the template, regardless of the actual article. I've just made the same swap at renewable energy for the same reason. Apart from that, I still have concerns about the image chosen (solar panels on roofs in Germany), and have stated so here. Just thought I'd bring it to the attention of the GA reviewers in case anyone else shares my concerns. EMsmile (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I had wanted to make the same change for a different reason. I think it's a bit ugly to have a 'thin' image first, and a wider one second. So please go ahead. There was enthusiasm for having a collage at the previous discussion, but no volunteers. The article is GA now, so not sure the reviewer is still watching, but we're on our way to FA, so more improvements are yay FemkeMilene (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Sure. I'm in favour of anything that makes that template less prominent ;) One thing I like about the current Solar Settlement picture is that it's about both energy sourcing and efficiency. A picture of an electric bus or electric train could also work, but I'm not sure if we have any pretty ones. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Proposed image collage for lead
OK, I've swapped the images now. Furthermore, I have hunted down some images and created a possible collage. I used the infobox template because that seemed to make it easier to align the images fairly well. But if someone knows better how to use the gallery function, please let me know. Here is my suggestion: (see on the right hand side)
Sustainable energy requires an energy transition to meet the world's needs for electricity, heating, cooling, and transport in a sustainable way.
Here is my reasoning: I tried to show images that take in the global perspective. So rather than showing just one example from a wealthy country (Germany), I think it's important how sustainable energy is of relevance to the entire world. Also, different types of energy needs, so I picked two images for heating/cooking. Maybe we could add another one to show the transport topic (we could use the one from the article with the bicycles?). The map could be in the collage or could be taken out. I quite like it because it highlights which parts of the world are struggling with access to electricity. I think access and lack thereof is another important aspect of sustainable energy at the global level, so it's represented in the collage with the world map. I see my proposal as just a starting point: feel free to rip into it and make it better! The images themselves and other image options are below:
Image 1
Image 2
Image 3
Image 4
Image 5
Image 6
Thanks EMsmile - I appreciate your efforts very much. It's very challenging to find good lead images for articles like this. Some opinionated opinions are:
For me the top priority for a lead image is to make sustainable energy look appealing and convey the promise of high quality of life. I am thus reluctant to have the lead image or collage portray poverty.
I'd like to avoid showing anything burning. As the WHO says (unusually bluntly for the WHO), "Massively implement solutions to burn less in any form."
In the top left photoi it's hard to see what's going on
In a collage it will always be hard to understand what the colours in a map are trying to say
Thanks for your feedback. The caption of the collage could briefly describe the individual photos if we think that's better. Overall, in my opinion, with a lot of Wikipedia articles (probably this one included) we have a region bias. This means a lot of our examples and images are taken from North America and Europe or other rich countries. If the topic of sustainable energy is not one that deserves a "globalised" viewpoint then which topic is? The pictures that I have chosen are not specifically showing poverty at all. They are showing the living conditions of millions of people around the globe who live in rural areas of developing countries. Whether people are "rich" or "poor" in those pictures is irrelevant. They need access to clean energies. Also, I am wondering if not having photos of things that burn is possible a bit Western-biased. How else would we meet the needs for cooking energy in developing countries? Sell solar cook stoves to everyone? Not realistic. The point is there are a myriad of issues and a myriad of possible approaches. This is what the collage is trying to show. And it's why a picture of solar energy of a roof in Germany on its own is in my opinion not ideal to represent "sustainable energy" in all its facets. It could equally be in the article for renewable energy and doesn't help readers to understand what the difference is between sustainable energy and renewable energy. - Looking forward to collecting more opinions... EMsmile (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Further thought: some of the images that I have chosen show "clean energy" or clean fuel (for cooking) which is a subset within "sustainable energy". I agree that the collage should probably only include one such image, not several.EMsmile (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Most of these images are not appropriate. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to get from huts that use wood for cooking and the other that burns something. Wood for cooking is bad and the world is trying to transition out of it right (ie: solid cook fuels)? Examples I suggest include: something solar (from China preferably, which uses way more solar than Germany), something wind/hydro, maybe an electric car (something not related to power stations), and maybe an induction oven (Ecuador is replacing all ovens with these). Bogazicili (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with all of the above that we shouldn't focus on cooking. Like Clayoquot, I like the image of Germany as it shows both energy efficiency and production (and of course, that country is a mother of that technology, and a bigger user than for instance China as a percentage of energy use)
I'm thinking along the lines of:
current picture +
cycling (somewhere in Asia?) +
Clean cooking (Africa?) +
something large-scale (hydro in Brazil?)
In addition to having many countries, this allows for a good distinction between renewable energy and sustainable energy. It is important that people can understand what the picture means when it's portraits in its tiny form in a collage, which I find difficult with the examples of cooking above. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't like the current image as it doesn't look very serious. A few rooftops is not going to solve the global energy transition. I also don't like the subconscious assignment of lower tech stuff to Africa (clean cooking) and Asia (cycling). Many (most?) of the largest solar plants are actually in those continents List_of_photovoltaic_power_stations. Bogazicili (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I found another image, which is a quality image:
Andasol Solar Power Station in Spain. As of 2020, in most countries, solar and onshore wind are cheapest forms of building new electricity-generating plants IEA (Image 9).
If we are not going to proceed with a collage, I want to change the current image and emphasize in the caption that solar and onshore wind are now cheapest forms of adding new electricity plants Bogazicili (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
That's such a pretty picture! My priority is to distinguish this article from renewable energy, and as such I prefer our old picture to this one (efficiency and displaying energy use to some extent). In a collage, this picture would work well. With land use a minor concern for sustainable energy, I'm not keen on making it the only picture, and it may not comply with this 'minor criterion'. FemkeMilene (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
My priority is also to distinguish this article from renewable energy. I think we can only do that with a collage. The collage could be 3-4 images which should make them sufficiently large to see what is going on. I do think we should have a picture that includes a rural image in a developing country. This is because sustainable energy is not just about technology but also about access and policy. And access is the problem for many people in developing countries. I can see how it might be construed that we show Africa = poverty so that's a dilemma. But I do feel that so many of our Wikipedia articles are biased towards America and the US or other rich countries. China or Brazil are perhaps nice alternatives. Still, I would like to come back to my question that I had put above and below. Does sustainable energy for you equal to "clean energy" and "clean fuel sources"? If yes, then having one picture out of four to depict a clean fuel source for cooking (even if it burns something) should be justifiable. If you don't agree with having an image of an efficient cook stove or wood pellets or biochar then how about the image where biogas is being burned for cooking or lighting? That should be acceptable? And the caption of the collage could briefly say something about each image. It should help educate readers that sustainable energy is not equal to renewable energy. EMsmile (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I love the Andasol power station picture. It conveys some of the benefits of sustainable energy - a nice clean environment with snow in the mountains, as opposed to a gigantic coal mine and a three-week long ski season. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Second proposal for image collage
Ok given the input from EMsmile, here's my suggestion, with the following considerations:
1) Geographic variety: South Africa, China, something representing Ecuador, Spain
2) Different types of sustainable energy: power station, transport, cooking, energy storage
3) I realized Andasol power station is a concentrated solar power, which might not be as cheap as solar PV, so switched it as an example for energy storage. I got its text from Energy storage
4) I also added explanations and why they are relevant, not sure if we have space for these in a collage
Electric induction oven. Ecuador is switching all cooking ovens to induction electric ones, which are more sustainable and cheaper than subsidized LPG [2] (Image 12)
We can also add this [11] instead of 1, and change Andasol solar power station with a hydro power station in Africa (eg: Cahora_Bassa_Dam) if you guys want to add hydro as well. But I also really like Andasol and it's an example of energy storage :) Bogazicili (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
We are making good progress, thanks Bogazicili, I like your selection in principle. Just the one with the induction oven I would probably swap out with one "lower tech" option. Could we agree that one of the four images should show a low-tech / low-cost / rural / developing country setting? Like perhaps the biogas stove from Africa or Asia. I am aware of the problem of depicting Africa = poor but we can surely find a good image that shows a rural example without perpetuating this stereotype too much. If not then it would feel to me like only rich countries can afford sustainable energy options! And again, developing countries would be left outside of this Wikipedia article. One out of four images should be doable? EMsmile (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Also I think the caption of the image collage will be important. It could say something like "Sustainable energy can take several forms; whether a type of energy (renewable or not) is "sustainable" depends on the sustainability criteria applied and their weightings for a given situation. Sustainability is a vector, not an absolute state." (perhaps the second sentence is too long, but that's the gist of it). EMsmile (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Induction oven is low-tech and low-cost. Ecuador is switching to those and it's a developing country. You should also remember that Africa will hit 50% urbanization rate by 2030 [12]. Also many African countries actually outperform developed countries in terms of renewable energy generation share List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production. 3 out of 4 countries in that collage are developing countries: South Africa, China and Ecuador. Bogazicili (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Such an induction oven is not low-cost. Everything is relative. Lower cost than others maybe but not suitable for the poorest. When I think of low cost it's those examples with the biogas light or biogas stove (shown higher up on this talk page). If you want, I am talking about least developed countries, which South Africa and China are not. I am talking about people in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Tanzania, Ivory Coast, Malawi, maybe Philippines, Indonesia and so forth. Far lower income levels than China and South Africa. - What do you think of my proposal for a caption (just above)? I think it could summarise the gist of the article nicely. EMsmile (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your proposed caption, it gives definitions that aren't supported by the sources we have in the article, or any sources that I know of. As for cooking in the least developed countries, the lowest-cost feasible option is not always biogas. My preference for a cooking image would show electricity because one of the main themes of sustainable energy is using more electricity and less combustion. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Electric induction oven. Ecuador is switching all cooking ovens to induction electric ones, which are more sustainable and cheaper than subsidized LPG [4]
Those last three are broad and clear. None of them can be made very wide, right? So we need a fourth one. I'd say wind or hydro, as energy sources are the biggest part of the topic? FemkeMilene (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
This might be controversial but I am suggesting to add an image from the article's section on non-renewable energy sources. According to the article this would include nuclear power or "switching to gas". I am well aware of all the controversies around nuclear power but according to our definition it is a sustainable energy source. The added benefit would be that it would immediately make it clear that the article is NOT about renewable energy (whereas if we put an image of solar, wind and hydro in the collage it will look like just another renewable energy article. EMsmile (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. I'd say we shouldn't. I've tried to be very careful in the language about whether switching to gas is sustainable (most people would say not), and whether nuclear is sustainable (more people may say yes than no). From your comment, this subtelty doesn't convey well. Could you tell me what makes you think the article's definition is definite on nuclear? I'd like to amend the text to clarify this. By putting it in the collage, we would say "yes, it's definitely sustainable" to our readers. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, I think the table of content makes it look like it's for sure included (without doubts). When I look at the table of content I see that sustainable energy has the following components and aspects: Energy conservation, Renewable energy sources, Non-renewable energy sources, Energy system transformation and Government policies. If the two non-renewable energy sources listed are not fully and squarely part of "sustainable energy" then I think the structure and headings of the article are misleading. Maybe it should then rather be grouped like this "Types of energy sources that are considered sustainable energy" and "Types of energy sources that are maybe or sometimes sustainable". Or something shorter like that. Or "Ongoing discussions". People often just look at the lead and the table of content to get a quick grasp of the subject. That's why I always argue for "standard section headings" which could make this much clearer, e.g. Components, Cross-cutting issues; controversial aspects; related technologies. And things like that. If the non-renewables that are listed are doubtful/disputed/controversial then what exactly does still differentiate sustainable from renewable energy? I think here the discussion of different dimensions of sustainability is key, and as yet lacking in the article. I also wrote about it further below on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainable_energy#Clarify_the_relationships_to_%22clean_energy%22_and_clean_fuel? EMsmile (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
the more I think about it, the more complicated it gets. What's "full agreement"? We can show amazing solar power or hydropower installations in our image collage, and yet not all hydropower or solar power is "sustainable" either. Lisa explained it with some examples here: "So, for example, renewable energy per se is an energy from a non-exhaustive resource, it should be available "forever". But that doesn't necessarily need to be "sustainable" when you look at big hydro power and environmental impacts. Also, from a development perspective, a small-scale RE intervention like solar home systems might not be sustainable in the sense of sustained/long-term provision with electricity if there is no proper maintenance and replacement system in place. However, it normally is considered "sustainable energy" in terms of using a renewable, non-exhausting clean energy source, the sun." - So therefore, including a certain type of energy in the collage is not a form of "endorsement", it would just show that a range of different energy sources can be or cannot be sustainable, depending on the sustainability criteria used.... EMsmile (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think "overwhelming agreement" is the right term either. It's not really about agreeing or not, it depends on the context. Maybe more like "in many instances, this type of renewable energy X is considered as sustainable but the assessment is always context specific and depends on the weighting of the sustainability parameters applied". Like Lisa pointed out, even solar energy can be unsustainable if there is no proper maintenance and replacement system in place... If we get this message across in the article then I think people could really learn something. EMsmile (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
If we decide not to show stuff that needs maintenance and replacement, we won't be showing anything. As for hydro, we should pick one of the better implementations. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The inclusion of (maybe) nuclear and (maybe) gas is just one of the differences between renewable energy and sustainable energy. Another big difference is that sustainable energy isn't just about energy sources; it's also about using less energy and using energy differently, which sometimes means changes in behaviour. That's why I'd like at least one or two of the images to show behaviour changes such as clean cooking, taking public transit, and cycling. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Electric BYD K9 bus in Shenzen (Image 21)I like the idea of showing something electric from China because, as you pointed out, China is a leader in solar and wind electricity. If we had a suitable image of an electric bus from China I'd totally go for it. Unfortunately I don't think this particular image (image 14) is great quality. There's not enough contrast between foreground and background, and there's a lot of black in the picture so it looks kind of blah overall. I tried cropping it to show just one bus on my computer but it still looks pretty blah. Here's an alternative: Image 21 Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I was specifically looking for something with a plug in the picture lol. We may also consider this (says electric on top but might be too small to see in the collage). But any electric bus image is good for me, so you guys can decide. Bogazicili (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Scheme of sustainable development: at the confluence of three constituent parts. (2006) (Image 20)
Here is another suggestion for the image collage: could we include an image for a non-technology aspect? Looking at the headings of the article we have energy conservation, energy system transformation, government politics. Could we come up with an image for that? I know it would be hard. Perhaps one of those international high level meetings? Or some ministers making important announcements. Or round table discussions with citizens. It might be too hard as it will open the question again of do we depict women/men, white people/ people of colour etc. But perhaps someone has a good image in mind that could work? Just putting it out there. Again, it would differentiate this page from "renewable energy" alone. EMsmile (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Wondering if one of the four images of the collage could perhaps be a graphic to explain sustainability. One of these two that I took from the sustainability article? See on the left:
One of the things we found when researching definitions of sustainable energy, is that many of them don't have a perfect overlap with sustainability in general. Over half the focus is on the environment, and social/economic aspects are often taken together. For the sustainability article, we urgently need higher-quality pictures to showcase this. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
We've done some wonderful brainstorming so far, over 20 proposals!
I've put together a collage of images that I think would work well together. I think it would be best for the lead image collage to communicate the breadth of this topic visually and at a glance, rather than requiring the reader to digest words. Captions for lead images are usually very short, even shorter than in the body of the article.
The picture I chose for cooking (image 15) is my favourite over image 12 because it has a person in it and because at a glance, it may not be obvious what image 12 is. For a transport image, my slight favourite the electric train from Singapore (image 18) because it conveys elegance and movement, and is visually harmonious with the rest of the collage. The main downside of this image is that Singapore's electricity is 95% from natural gas (and probably will be for a while - small countries like this don't have much space for wind or solar). My second choice for transport would be image 21. For the 2 pictures on energy sources, I just chose the ones I thought were prettiest. Thoughts? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes! All images are clear in their tiny size and it shows loads of aspects of sustainable energy / geographical diversity. Electric transport has an additional benefit of showcasing energy efficiency (of course, most trains are already electric). It's shows the human component, as well as the technological component. Nicely put together. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I liked the Ecuador caption as they are using excess hydro power for sustainable/no emission cooking (shows the synergy). But at least there's no low tech bias for Africa with 2 images, the other one showing wind power. As for the train, electric trains are old. It doesn't really show the transition we are in (electrification of transport such as cars, buses, etc). That's why I wanted a picture for China, as it's banning sale of fully ICE cars from 2035 and it's the biggest car market in the world. Also I guess we aren't doing individual captions (I was thinking something similar to Climate change, individual impacts pics on top that you can take a look at. Bogazicili (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the construction we have at climate change won't pas a featured article candidacy as long as it remains buggy (which goes against MOS:ACCIM). Wouldn't it be good to show 'old' technology as well? Many things in the energy transition is just using technology properly instead of introducing new stuff. I have a weak preference for the train, as it's a higher-quality picture, and its colours fit well with the rest of the images. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Good point on electric trains being old - we could use more of a balance between the deployment of mature technology (electric cooking) and the need for new technology (electric cars and buses). I added a new iteration in which I swapped out the train picture for a bus in which you can see the lack of a tailpipe, and also some trees which show good urban planning. To be honest though, I slightly prefer the train picture because of the aesthetics. Regarding the image for cooking, it's not obvious at a glance that the induction stove is a stove at all, and the picture by itself doesn't give any clues about what country it is in or where the electricity comes from. This would be a great picture and caption for the body but I don't think it's self-explanatory enough for the lead.
Also, in Ecuador's clean cooking transition, nearly all of the health and social benefits and many of the environmental and economic benefits were gained when Ecuador transitioned from woodfuel to LPG. As you've noted, transitioning from LPG to renewable electricity is bringing further environmental and economic benefits. Someone looking at a picture of a large induction stove set into a polished granite countertop here (assuming they recognize it as a stove) might conclude that we're saying having relatively rich people replace their stoves is a top priority in the energy transition. This is the message that relatively rich people hear all the time when they ask what they can do about climate change. What I'd like to make the reader think about is the poorest half of the population. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I quite like the current proposal and would be happy if this (or a similar) low-cost cooking image from Africa was decided to be kept (this one from Ethiopia is not quite perfect in my view because I disagree with the statement made above by Clayoquot that sustainable energy should always mean more electricity, less or no combustion... (to me, sustainability is a direction not an absolute state)). But all good. I am so relieved that we had a friendly discussion, where everyone was assuming good faith of the other - thanks! Regarding the caption, could we at least start if off with "Sustainable energy can take several forms - it may or may not be renewable energy. From top left: etc." And I will hunt around for a good source to support my statement: "Sustainable energy can take several forms; whether a type of energy (renewable or not) is "sustainable" depends on the sustainability criteria applied and their weightings for a given situation. Sustainability is a vector, not an absolute state." I am pretty sure a source must exist for that. It's exactly the way we define sustainable sanitation, based on the work of the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance. EMsmile (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm ok with the proposal as well, with preference for B (electric bus). The caption should also say first pic is an example of energy storage in addition to solar energy generation. Bogazicili (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I am so grateful for a friendly discussion too! I'll put in Option A for now as that had the most support overall. More electric vehicle pictures will probably become available in the next year and then we can swap out the train (maybe someday the manufacturers will figure out that if they want Wikipedia to show something better than what a random person took with a phone in a parking lot they should free-license some professional shots). Instead of "Solar energy in Spain", I'll add, "Solar thermal energy with molten salt heat storage in Spain", and we can tweak it from there.
Regarding adding "Sustainable energy can take several forms - it may or may not be renewable energy" to the caption, I think that's too controversial to say in wikivoice. Many people believe that only renewable energy is sustainable. Moreover, the point of the bottom two pictures in the collage is that sustainable energy is not just about sources of energy - it's also about using energy in safer forms and using less energy. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm really liking the images in the article. By the way image editing is kind of fun :)
Can we change the hydro power image from Japan? I think we have too many examples from East Asia now. Maybe something from South America such as Guri Dam? Maybe this? [16]Bogazicili (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Done. I also changed the cycling image. People cycling in East Asia is a bit of a cliche stereotype, and the heavy apparent traffic and people biking were giving me a bit of anxiety. The new pic shows a bike lane. A lot of cities are changing their urban design to add bike lanes, so I think this picture captures that better. Bogazicili (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The caption for the image collage in the lead
Let's reach consensus about the caption for the image collage in the lead. I think we need to start it with a sentence that explains why we even have a collage. My suggestion was: "Sustainable energy can take several forms - it may or may not be renewable energy". User:Clayoquot said: "Personally, I think this is backed up by the content of the article. Many people believe that only renewable energy is sustainable." This may be so that many people believe that. But I think in the article we made it clear that this is not a universal truth. Otherwise why would we even have a section on nuclear power at all? But how about like this to make it less controversial: "Sustainable energy relies on a range of energy sources, using energy in different ways and using less energy. From top left in clockwise: xxx". EMsmile (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, where did I say "Personally, I think this is backed up by the content of the article."? I can't find that quote on this page. I think your idea for the caption is on the right track though. How about, "Sustainable use of energy involves using lower-impact energy sources, delivering energy in safer forms, and energy conservation..." Or perhaps something like "Sustainable energy involves increasing production of renewable energy, making safe energy universally available, and energy conservation..." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
My mistake, really sorry. I meant to say that I believe this is backed up by the content of the article. Your statement was "Many people believe that only renewable energy is sustainable", which I think is a true statement but it doesn't mean our article is saying "only renewable energy is sustainable". In our article it probably says something like "While many people believe that only renewable energy is sustainable, there are also scholars and high level organisations who believe that non-renewable energy sources can also be sustainable". Refer to those statements by Lisa which I had quoted above. So I think if we point that out directly and openly in the caption of the lead image, then we set the scene and remove any myths that sustainable energy = renewable energy. - But if there is no appetite/consensus for that, then I think your suggestions for the first sentence of the caption are also good ones. EMsmile (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
No worries. What I'm trying to say is that the belief that sustainable energy sources = renewable energy sources is not a myth. It's an opinion. The belief that sustainable energy sources include non-renewables is also an opinion, and neutral point of view policy says we should not use Wikipedia's voice to state opinions as if they were facts. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
yes, they are opinions and it's our duty in the article to provide due weight to each. But if for example, it turns out that big organisations like Worldbank, EU or whatever say sustainable energy can include nuclear power then this opinion would carry more weight than the opinion of some small academic study, and therefore we need to present it as such. Just as an example; I am not yet sure which opinion is "bigger". I do think this needs to come out more clearly in the section headings - at the moment they are all on the same level as if there was no difference (see below where I talk about section headings). It should be grouped into those energy sources that are clear and unanimous (renewable energy) and those that are under discussion (non-renewable energy). And if the say in the collage caption: "Sustainable energy may or may not include only renewable energy sources" then this is a correct interpretation of the different opinions, and a good summary, isn't it? And it's not just about nuclear, it's also about those cleaner cooking fuels which do burn things and may be not renewable... EMsmile (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Let's go ahead and swap out the picture in the lead
My suggestion is that today is a good day to swap out the current image in the lead with the new collage. I think it will be easier to fine tune the last details (bus versus train etc., exact wording of the caption) once we see it live in front of us. So I suggest to replace the image of the solar panels in Germany now with the new collage (even if it's still work in progress - it always will be). EMsmile (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Good, I see it's been added, thanks. Do we really want to have "clean cooking" in red though? I find that distracting. I'll put a wikilink to clean fuel there. EMsmile (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I find it really awkward to talk about electricity as a fuel. I know it's sometimes used in this broad sense, but the first meaning of the word is something combustible. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Update: I see that "clean cooking" in the caption is now wikilinked to energy poverty and cooking, so that's good. Overall, I think our collage is looking rather nice now. It did take us a long time to get there but along the way we discussed and refined our understanding of "sustainable energy" and which aspects to emphasis. I find the image(s) used in the lead so important, for all Wikipedia articles. EMsmile (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Yup, I like the lead images too, but not sure about this one [17] in Bioenergy section. What is that supposed to tell me? The lamp seems electric, why is there a match? Bogazicili (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
The light operates with biogas and has to be lit with a match. It's not electric. I've changed the caption to "Kenyan farmer lighting a biogas lamp. Biogas produced from biomass is a renewable energy source that can be used for cooking or to provide light." Is that better? EMsmile (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Love the finance section
I was really struggling to find a good place for that COVID paragraph. This new section makes me feel we're almost ready for a pre-FAC peer review. Got some smaller things to tweak. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
My proposal was this sentence in the first paragraph of the lead but it was reverted: "Definitions of sustainable energy typically include three dimensions of sustainability: environmental aspects such as greenhouse gas emissions, and social and economic aspects such as energy poverty." Now it's back to "Definitions of sustainable energy typically include environmental aspects such as greenhouse gas emissions, and social and economic aspects such as energy poverty.". I feel that my proposal had the merit of explaining how sustainable energy relates to the overall concept of sustainability. (the term "sustainability" is mentioned later in the lead but not yet wikilinked) I feel that it's important to mention the concept of "dimensions of sustainability", or "criteria of sustainability". The term "aspects" does not capture it fully. In the sustainability discourse, the terms "dimensions" or "criteria" are more commonly used than "aspects". So it wouldn't hurt to make this link to the bigger picture, or does it? EMsmile (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the goal of relating sustainable energy to the overall concept of sustainability, I feel this is already done in the first sentence, which says, "The use of energy is considered sustainable if it meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations." You say that that the term "sustainability" is mentioned later in the lead but not yet wikilinked, yet the word "sustainable" is in the first sentence and is wikilinked.
Thanks for providing sources. The IEEE one looks good. Unfortunately, the Prandecki paper is from a predatory journal so we cannot use it.
I'll take your word that the terms "dimensions" or "criteria" are more commonly used than "aspects". I just made an edit to the Definitions section to replace "aspects" with "dimensions". In the lead, I don't want to make the sentence on definitions longer or more complicated, and the word "aspects" works grammatically here whereas the alternatives do not. I easily found two sources that use the term "aspects" the way this sentence currently does, such as UN ECE this one. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I am happy that the term "dimension" made it in. That's a good change. I'll dig more into the literature to see what I can find out about sustainability within sustainable energy. (I think it's key to explain why sustainable energy does not equal renewable energy) As it was mentioned above, we don't need to follow WP:MEDRS, right? I assume that some of this information is more likely to be found in grey literature. The journal "Energy and Environmental Engineering" is predatory? I wasn't aware of that, that's a pity. EMsmile (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Proposal for slight changes to the section headings
I had written this above but it was inside the discussion on images for the lead, so I am copying it here below as I feel it hasn't been discussed and resolved yet: I think the table of content makes it look like nuclear power and switching to gas are for sure included in sustainable energy (without doubts). When I look at the table of content I (or another quick superficial reader) form the impression that sustainable energy has the following components and aspects: Energy conservation, Renewable energy sources, Non-renewable energy sources, Energy system transformation and Government policies. If the two non-renewable energy sources listed are not fully and squarely part of "sustainable energy" then I think the structure and headings of the article are misleading. Maybe it should then rather be grouped like this "Types of energy sources that are considered sustainable energy" and "Types of energy sources that are maybe or sometimes sustainable". Or something shorter like that. Or "Ongoing discussions". People often just look at the lead and the table of content to get a quick grasp of the subject. That's why I always argue for "standard section headings" which could make this much clearer, e.g. Components, Cross-cutting issues; controversial aspects; related technologies. And things like that. EMsmile (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I've been struggling a lot with this, cracking my head.. I think you're right that we should try to rephrase the 'switching to gas' with something that doesn't imply it's sustainable. The problem with the top-level heading proposals: none of the energy sources are considered sustainable under all circumstances, it's a multidimensional scale, so this distinction would be arbitrary and isn't supported by the sources. High-quality sources don't put the sources in two distinct groups.
I always try to make headings specific, to help the reader understand what they're clicking on, so those examples of standard section headings don't work for me. We've discussed before that controversial aspects is discouraged, as it's a honeypot for POV editing). FemkeMilene (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I always try to make the Level-1 headings generic so that people immediately recognise where to find what (e.g. things like "Society and culture" and "History" work for almost all articles), and then make the Level-2 headings more specific to the article. Suggestion: Maybe it would work in this case if we dropped the grouping of renewable and non-renewable and rather called the Level-1 heading there "Energy sources that may be sustainable". This would make it clear upfront that ALL of the listed energy sources can be "unsustainable" (but don't have to be) and that the renewable aspect is not the only decisive factor. EMsmile (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
On generic vs specific headings, I agree with Femke and gave my thoughts in the discussion last month.[18] I'm planning to try to incorporate more on clean cooking in our "Switching to gas" section, and in that process I'll see if any inspiration for headings comes up. There are many gaps and issues with our article right now, and overhauling the headings is not one of the higher priorities IMHO. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I didn't realise we have that many gaps and issues with our article still? It passed GA review recently, didn't it? Perhaps I have missed it but do you already have the gaps listed somewhere? I can see some (as mentioned above) but am just wondering what the currently "official" list of gaps and issues is. And just as an aside: I don't think there should be a hierarchical list of priorities. On another occasion and article I have been told "the image in the lead is not our priority right now" (see talk page of marine biology). As it's a multi-authored article, the priorities of the different authors may differ at different times, depending on their interests and energy levels. Just saying. :-) Anyway, I'll wait and see what ideas come up regarding those two particular section headings. EMsmile (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I hate being the one to shoot down ideas in a brainstorming without offering up alternatives, but "Energy sources that may be sustainable" implies still that it's a yes/no question, instead of degrees of sustainability.
About priorities, I agree we shouldn't impose any. There is of course only so much head space for discussion, and I've been waiting with discussing the government section properly till other discussions have died down for quite a while now.
I plan to revive my list of things to do for FA soon (see archives for previous list). From the top of my head, innovation is lacking, and if due, the trade-off between poverty alleviations and quiting fossil fuel subsidies. Great you have contacted outsiders! I've had my brother review the article at an earlier stage, which was useful. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
coming back to this, after two weeks away. I have just made a somewhat bold change to the article and it's just a proposal which - if others see merit- we could perhaps build on. I wrote in the edit summary "I have added a section on "components" where I am trying to give an overview of what follows and explain the concept of sustainability criteria. I think these criteria are critical because they explain why some renewable energy solutions may not be sustainable, or why some non-renewable energy solutions may be non sustainable.". I did this to improve the dilemma that the two headings of "Renewable energy sources" and "Non-renewable energy sources" appear side by side, so that a superficial reader of the table of contents cannot see that there are different degrees here. I felt that we had to explain the concept of sustainability criteria (3 or 5 of them is pretty much standard) because only that explains what the difference is between sustainable and renewable etc. If my suggestion is met with disapproval, then I would like to rethink whether the section headings ought to be changed a bit to make it clearer what is part of sustainable energy and what isn't. EMsmile (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
another option to achieve this could be to change the Level-1 heading to "Possible energy sources", then have "Renewable energy sources" and "Non-renewable energy sources" as Level-2 headings. Which means solar, hydro etc. would become Level-3 headings and no longer be visible in the TOC, which I found find OK. EMsmile (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
OK, then how about "Energy sources" as a Level-1 header and then "Renewable energy sources" and "Non-renewable energy sources" as Level-2 headings but before those headings start, provide an explanation. For me, it really doesn't work to have "Renewable energy sources" and "Non-renewable energy sources" both as Level-1 headings without an explanation somewhere around there. It is a confusing topic so we have to do our best to clarify things (if needed in several places). We cannot expect everyone to read from first sentence to last - they might also jump in at Level-1 headings which is why they need to be right. EMsmile (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Hmm... That would have the disadvantage of not having solar energy/wind energy in the TOC (to keep it somewhat compact, we've set it to max level 2), and may exacarbate the problem we've identified by giving renewables and non-renewables equal attention there. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be advantageous to not have solar, wind etc. show up in the TOC as that would make the article more obviously different to the article on renewable energy which does list all the individual technologies as Level 2 headings. It would also help to re-shift the focus of this article slightly away from technologies more to the holistic picture of what sustainability means in the context of "sustainable energy". But yes, it's a fairly drastic change to the structure. EMsmile (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Additional thought: perhaps there is no need to group the energy sources into renewable or not, as their renewability aspect is not the main/only decisive factor to decide if something is sustainable or not. In that case, all the technologies could be listed below each other as Level 2 headings, and each could be discussed in turn with regards to when they are sustainable or not, or what the current debates are. EMsmile (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I see some clear advantages in grouping the energy sources into renewable and non-renewable. First, it reflects the fact that most sources refer to renewable energy sources as a category, so it would be surprising to not group energy sources this way. Second, the introduction we have to the section on renewables is valuable and should probably be expanded to cover other aspects of the category, such as the fact that renewables tend to be land-intensive and that different countries have different levels of ability to generate renewable energy. I don't have a strong opinion on whether the individual energy sources should appear in the TOC. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I'll make the change to the Level 1 header now for energy sources, so that we can see what it looks like and whether it would feel right. EMsmile (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I like the new TOC where "Energy sources" is a Level 1 heading. I think this tiny change has made the structure a lot clearer. It has also taken the emphasis away from individual technologies as they are no longer visible in the TOC. EMsmile (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Questions about the lead: components
I am starting a new section about something that we started to discuss above. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article. Does the article not say (implicitly, see table of content) "Components for a sustainable energy approach include energy conservation, the choice of sustainable energy sources (predominantly of the renewable energy type), energy transition (energy system transformation) as well as finance and government policies."? I understand those section headings (energy conservation, energy sources etc.) to be components of sustainable energy which is way I am proposing that kind of summary sentence. Is it not a fair summary of the article's content? As such it doesn't have to have a reference. Statements in the lead that are summaries of the content of the article don't require sources. EMsmile (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
The word component implies a framing of sustainable energy, which we should only do in line with HQRSs. We don't make this framing explicit in the body, so I agree we shouldn't put it in the lede like this. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
A sub-section or sentences on dimensions of sustainability?
(I mentioned this above in the discussion about the image collage caption but am repeating it here to ensure we can discuss and reach consensus) I think the discussion about different dimensions of sustainability is key, and as yet lacking in the article. I need to hunt around for references on that, unless someone has something at their fingertips? I'll search also in the Wikipedia article on sustainability. And I will hunt around for a good source to support my statement: "Sustainable energy can take several forms; whether a type of energy (renewable or not) is "sustainable" depends on the sustainability criteria applied and their weightings for a given situation. Sustainability is a vector, not an absolute state." I am pretty sure a source must exist for that. It's exactly the way we define sustainable sanitation, based on the work of the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance. EMsmile (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
How is this different from what we have under definition? The RSs don't spend much more time on this, so feel like expanding it would not be great. Clayoquot spent a lot of time getting this much. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the addition works. First of all, it uses a vague title, which I prefer not to have. It's not prose, but bullet points, with the people at FAC don't like. And most importantly, the citations that are given are about sustainability in general, instead of sustainable energy. Be wary of MDPI journals, they rarely if never meet the HQRS requirements for FAR . I'll revert for now, but make sure to include page numbers when citing books / reports. FemkeMilene (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
To add, this is a bit of a duplication of the TOC. Putting it here to see whether sources can be reused elsewhere.
== Components ==
Components for a sustainable energy approach include:
Energy conservation
Utilizing either renewable or non-renewable energy sources, provided they meet ideally all dimensions of sustainability as much as possible: The dimensions (or criteria) of sustainability as proposed by scholars range from just three (economics, environment, and social sustainability)[1] to five (institutional and technical as additional criteria)[2] or more[3][4].
Yes, the citations are given about sustainability in general, and I think that is important and WP:DUE. How can we have an article about sustainable energy but shy away from providing a small section on what sustainability actually means? It didn't take me long to find those references. I am sure with a bit of digging one can find a publication about sustainable energy that says the same thing. Before searching for that, are we in agreement with the content of what I had added? Just not the references that I had used, nor the location where I had put it? And I don't think that "Components" is vague as a standard section heading. It's the components of a sustainable energy approach which are energy conservation, suitable energy sources, energy system transformation and finance and policies (or?). If bullet points are no good, we can easily write it out in a paragraph. Alternatively, it could be added into the section on "Definitions and background". - I am trying to provide orientation to lay persons who would be reading this article. EMsmile (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Femke. I don't see value in substantially duplicating the TOC, and it fails WP:NOR by using sources that aren't about sustainable energy in order to support claims about sustainable energy. If you found better sources to support it, it would still fail W:NPOV, because it states at least one seriously contested assertion (the idea of including non-renewable energy sources) as a fact.
Wikipedia articles try to give the lay readers orientation through the lead section, as explained in WP:Lead. If you feel the current lead isn't achieving that goal, let's discuss how to improve it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
OK, I understand. I will hunt around for publications that explain the sustainability criteria in the context of sustainable energy (not just in general or in WASH) so that my points are not WP:OR. But I think we won't get around the fact that some reputable sources say that non renewable energy sources can be - in certain instances - regarded as sustainable energy. It's a fact that some sources say that, right? It's also a fact that it's controversial. This, we have to explain. I'll also take another look at the lead. EMsmile (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
We already explain this controversy in the lead, in the sentence on nuclear and the sentence on natural gas. What is there left to explain? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I was referring to your statement of If you found better sources to support it, it would still fail W:NPOV, because it states at least one seriously contested assertion (the idea of including non-renewable energy sources) as a fact. This aspect is not explained/summarised in the lead but should be. Actually the lead does talk about nuclear and switching to gas (which is good) but it does not refer to non-renewable energy sources as a group, only singling out these two energy sources. Maybe it's fairly easy to improve this by changing this sentence Nuclear power is a low-carbon source and has a safety record comparable to wind and solar to something like "On the other hand, with regards to non-renewable energy sources, the debate continues whether "nuclear power" etc...." Not all lay persons would immediately know that nuclear power and natural gas are non-renewable; that's all. At the moment, the paragraph starts with renewable sources and doesn't clearly explain that Part 2 of the paragraph is about non-renewable. Something like "on the other hand" might help to structure this better. EMsmile (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I guess it's plausible that the reader might not know that nuclear and gas are non-renewable. (BTW in the case of nuclear, there is a minority POV that nuclear energy can be considered renewable). Is the fact that these energy sources are non-renewable important enough to spend words on in the lead, instead of spending these words on other facts? I'm not convinced of that.
It's occurred to me that perhaps you're trying to follow the standard advice in communications that says, "Tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what you told them." This is generally good advice, but it's not Wikipedia's style. We skip the "tell them what you are going to tell them" and get right to telling them the most important facts about the topic. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I am just trying to improve the logical flow of the paragraph, thinking about a sensible connector between those two sentences. Things like "Furthermore,", "in contrast", "in addition" can go a long way to improve the logical flow, and are not wasting valuable space in the lead. The lead currently has 415 words which I regard not too long (and possibly not long enough). Personally, I think a lead with 600 words is nice. EMsmile (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the lead is a bit on the short side now. There are lots of important facts still to add to the lead though. If you feel "non-renewable" it's really important, I'm open to it for now. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I've made a proposal to provide this guidance in the lead now. While doing so, I was wondering if energy transition is the same as energy system transformation? In the lead we talk about energy transition which I assumed refers to the section that we later call "energy system transformation" but perhaps I am wrong? EMsmile (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Doing... Energy transition and energy system transformation are slightly different concepts. You're right that we should explain them. I'll take an action item to do that. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
The following still fails WP:V and I also don't find it useful: "Components for a sustainable energy approach include energy conservation, the choice of sustainable energy sources (predominantly of the renewable energy type), energy transition (energy system transformation) as well as finance and government policies." The lead says things about all these issues (or if it doesn't, it should), so listing them does not add anything. And it's still unsourced. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
^Thomas, Steve A. (2016). The Nature of Sustainability. Chapbook Press. Grand Rapids, Michigan. ISBN9781943359394.
^James, Paul; Magee, Liam (2016). "Domains of Sustainability". In A. Farazmand (ed.). Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer.
French translation
Hi, as I see this talk page is quite active, I wanted to point out that I've fully translated this article into French. Congratulations to the people involved with writing it, it is easily the best article I've ever translated. I intend to nominate my translation to the equivalent of GA on French Wikipedia.
I think I've read here that there is interest in nominating this article for FA, so I wanted to ask if there were plans to make major changes to it in the coming weeks or if the article was close to its final form? The quality of work seems rather high so I'd love to add any big changes to the French article. Anyway, thanks for the article and have a good one. --Espandero (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Espandero that's wonderful, thanks so much! It's always hard to know when is the right time to translate an article. I think this one is still undergoing some upgrading work (e.g. recently that small change to the table of content, so that "energy sources" became a Level-1 header). It's hard to predict the time line though, maybe the others can advise better on that. Your note prompted me to look at the German version and I noticed that in the German Wikipedia it links to the "renewable energy" article which is incorrect. Hmmm... (I am German but have focused my energy on the English Wikipedia so far). EMsmile (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
What a lovely surprise! Thank you so much for doing this translation and for your kind words here. I think we're likely to rewrite the Government policies section and also add another 5-10 paragraphs in the coming weeks before submitting it for FA. At that point, I'll try to summarize for you what changes I think are important. Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you EMsmile and Clayoquot. I have the page on my watchlist but I might move to other things for a while so I'd love a summary of the important changes when the time comes. Best, Espandero (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Use bold words in the first sentence of the lead?
I see it has been briefly discussed above but I don't think it was fully conclusive. I have just made the words "energy" and "sustainable" bold in the first sentence of the lead. Could this be a suitable compromise? I have reviewed MOS:BOLDLEAD but maybe I have missed something. I see that there is no requirements to have "sustainable energy" appear in bold but as a reader, I find it somehow really reassuring to see those bold words in the first sentence. If there is no possibility to achieve that, then OK. But perhaps we haven't thought of all the options yet. EMsmile (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
To me, that's just a guideline but not a hard and fast rule. It says "In general, if the article's title (or a significant alternative title) is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear". I think in our case we could just do it, as it works so well and the bold words are almost next to each other. I find it much better than having no bold words at all. EMsmile (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I see that somewhere along the line we lost the two bold words in the first sentence again. :-( Is there any chance we could get them back in? For me, I am so used to seeing the title in bold in the first sentence that I really miss it when I get to an article that doesn't have it. I automatically feel that it's a lower quality article. I bet that > 80% of all WP:FA articles have the title in bold in the first sentence (my gut feeling). EMsmile (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Another advantage of not bolding in the first sentence is allowing wikilinks to sustainable and energy. (t · c) buidhe16:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
External links?
I think in one of the earlier versions I had added an external links section with a link to Energypedia: https://energypedia.info/wiki/Main_Page . I think this would be justified but it seems someone deleted that along the way. Could we put it back in or is there a major reason why Energypedia should not be listed under External Links? I think they have a lot of good material about sustainable energy, as well as energy access in developing countries on their website, and they are pretty unique. EMsmile (talk) 03:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I have a weak preference for no external links, but if you feel energypedia provides high-quality stuff we don't cover, please go ahead and add it. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I also think that external links lists are to be treated with care... I often cull them down. So I understand your hesitation. I think Energypedia would be worth adding here as it's a niche topic and their coverage of developing countries aspects for sustainable energy is important, I think. But I am happy to wait a bit longer and collect more opinions first before we decide one way or another. EMsmile (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
WikiBlame doesn't seem to have a record of it being added.[19] I would also prefer no external links, and Energypedia seems to be oriented towards practitioners rather than towards the general reader. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I thought I had added it in the past. Thank you for pointing me to WikiBlame - I hadn't discovered this tool yet. Useful! - Energypedia is a wiki platform for collaborative knowledge exchange on renewable energy, energy access, and energy efficiency topics in developing countries. It is not in particular geared towards practitioners but yes it is geared towards developing countries. I think it fills a great niche. OK, it might be more relevant for topics that are further down the tree, such as improved cookstove. Just wondering why you are against external links? In general or just not for this article? Noting that most articles do have external links, e.g. even the very high level article on climate change has these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#External_links (in my opinion, long external links list are a pain and I often cull them down; but very targeted few, e.g. 2-4 can be good in my opinion). EMsmile (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Are we using American English or British English?
I suggest we consistently use American English for this article. At the moment, it's a mixture of spellings. EMsmile (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I thought British English was first, so let's stick to that? I don't mind switching, but I will make mistakes if we go for US English. FemkeMilene (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I know the rule of "whatever came first" but I am just wondering if it wouldn't be nicer to have a bit of consistency across key articles of WikiProject Climate Change, and make them all American English for simplicity reasons. (I haven't checked but assume climate change uses American English). I know that e.g. WikiProject Medicine has settled on American English (unless key "first authors" object for particular articles). EMsmile (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
The Europeans came first in climate change :). I'm all for consistency, especially if it requires less thinking on my side :P. FemkeMilene (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Does that man the climate change article is in British English? I wasn't quite sure. Spotted some American English words there (fertilizer instead of fertiliser). Do you want to propose for WikiProject Climate Change to be British English in general (unless articles are already in US English for a long time)? Maybe something to discuss on the WikiProject page. I think it's good if a WikiProject gives a general guide (knowing well that articles are not to be "switched over" unnecessarily), especially for articles that are still new, developing, undergoing thorough review etc. - So this one here you want in British English? If so, then let's correct the words that are currently in American English. Easily done by searching for z, zation, izing etc. EMsmile (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd support it, but I'm not going to propose it myself. Corrected the fertiliser and -ize endings on CC, thanks for noticing. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
When I arrived at the article ~ 2 years ago I got the impression it was in British English, so I tried to keep it that way but I'm sure I missed the mark a few times. Any corrections to make spelling and terminology more British in this article would be appreciated. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Good point. Clean energy and green energy both redirect to this page, and they are mentioned in the article, but not very clearly. I think a sub-section about terminology (within Definition) could be useful. EMsmile (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I added a sentence for these terms. if anyone can find a high-quality citation for it that would be great, but we could also leave it unreferenced as it shouldn't be controversial. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it's an important sentence and it should also go into the lead. However, for the main body, I find the usage of bold formatting a little distracting. Is it standard practice to do so? Also, it might be controversial in the sense that some people might expect green/clean energy to rather redirect to renewable energy? From that perspective it might be good to have one or two references and to explain this well. EMsmile (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
If we think that the terms green energy and clean energy are important and up and coming then I think they should also be mentioned in the lead. Furthermore, I think we need to revisit the redirects. Do we have a good justification that they redirect to here? Is that really common usage of the terms, i.e. when people think of "clean energy", do they really mean sustainable energy? I suspect that they are thinking more of the CO2 emissions, and thus mean renewable energy. The term "clean" makes no reference so the social and institutional dimension of "sustainable energy". I had a quick hunt around on the internet and found various pages that explain it. For example here: "Green energy is that which comes from natural sources, such as the sun. Clean energy are those types which do not release pollutants into the air, and renewable energy comes from sources that are constantly being replenished, such as hydropower, wind power or solar energy." I've seen in some places that "clean energy" is used to refer to energy from nuclear power. Most places I looked described "green energy" as a subset of "renewable energy". So overall, I don't think we can just argue "the redirects have been in place for a long time" but need to re-examine this and be purposeful with the redirects. I think it would be good to make things explicit and explain the different terms in the "definitions" section (either here or in renewable energy if we decide to change the redirects). This sentence is a good start but I think we need more and probably need good references (?): "Energy sources with low environmental impact are sometimes referred to as green energy or clean energy." Unless we claim it is a common knowledge statement which does not need a reference. EMsmile (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
W.r.t. redirects to Sustainable energy, if you want to propose changing redirects the place to do so is Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. W.r.t. sourcing the statement "Energy sources with low environmental impact are sometimes referred to as green energy or clean energy," I do believe this is a common knowledge statement. Since they're common knowledge I think it's also OK for the lead to not mention the terms. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make more sense to achieve consensus about possible redirects here, with the authors who have mainly worked on this article so far, rather than going to a more anonymous place? Would be good to hear from others who are watching this page as well. If no consensus can be reached, then going to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion would be the second step, in my opinion. (or perhaps before that, I should raise the suggestion at renewable energy which might have more page watchers). EMsmile (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/MicrocityCarSharingHangzhou.jpg/816px-MicrocityCarSharingHangzhou.jpg)
![Electric induction oven. Ecuador is switching all cooking ovens to induction electric ones, which are more sustainable and cheaper than subsidized LPG [2] (Image 12)](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Kookplaat_inductie.JPG/722px-Kookplaat_inductie.JPG)
![Electric buses charging in Beijing, China. For new cars, China will only allow sale of new energy vehicles, such as electric vehicles begging in 2035.[3] (Image 14)](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/%E5%8C%97%E4%BA%AC%E5%8D%97%E8%8F%9C%E5%9B%AD%E5%85%85%E7%94%B5%E7%AB%99.jpg/720px-%E5%8C%97%E4%BA%AC%E5%8D%97%E8%8F%9C%E5%9B%AD%E5%85%85%E7%94%B5%E7%AB%99.jpg)
Doing... Energy transition and energy system transformation are slightly different concepts. You're right that we should explain them. I'll take an action item to do that. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
