Talk:Energy transition/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 20 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NShair1216.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

german energy imports from france

this sentence "The reduction of reliance on nuclear plants has had the consequence of increased reliance on fossil fuels and on electricity imports from France." is wrong. the opposite is true. it is an old myth that germany would need to import electricity after switching of nuclear power plants but that turned out to be wrong and fair mongering. right now germanys neighboring countries complain about to much german electricity exports and the german grid goes critically almost daily because of to much energy and not enough demand. never in history did germany export more electricity. http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article118645559/Deutschland-exportiert-so-viel-Strom-wie-nie-zuvor.html http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2013-09/stromproduktion-deutschland-ueberschuss-energiewende#comments

I'm going to change the sentence if nobody objects. but how you anyone. it's clear.

95.222.128.13 (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Example for 'energy conservation' is wrong (in introduction)

The article states "An example of an effective energy conservation measure is improved insulation for buildings" — this however remains an example of energy efficiency. An example of energy conservation would be to turn down the thermostat. My viewpoint is in agreement with the article on energy conservation and also with usage in the literature, for instance:

• Agora Energiewende (2014). Benefits of energy efficiency on the German power sector : summary of key findings from a study conducted by Prognos AG and IAEW (PDF). Berlin, Germany: Agora Energiewende.

I about to make the necessary changes. -- RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

conflicted article

This article gives only one motive for energy transition - global warming, this overlooks other motives like cost, availability, politics. Instead of presenting a balanced view on the actual transitions taking place or including non-renewable solutions to global warming, there seems to be two POV themes - one in favor of renewable energy and the other against nuclear energy. If global warming is really the topic here, these two POV's are on opposite sides of it, as of 2016 shutting down the 4.5% of nuclear would eliminate all the gains made by the 4.3% wind and solar. I would suggest that if the POV's are to be retained that the global warming topic be replaced by a section on green ideals. Or another alternative is to separate the conflicting topics and their intended purpose. Other ideas ?? Dougmcdonell (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Energy transition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121027171200/http://erneuerbare-energien.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/leitstudie2011_bf.pdf to http://erneuerbare-energien.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/leitstudie2011_bf.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160920202129/https://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/V/vierter-monitoring-bericht-energie-der-zukunft-englische-kurzfassung%2Cproperty%3Dpdf%2Cbereich%3Dbmwi2012%2Csprache%3Dde%2Crwb%3Dtrue.pdf to https://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/V/vierter-monitoring-bericht-energie-der-zukunft-englische-kurzfassung%2Cproperty%3Dpdf%2Cbereich%3Dbmwi2012%2Csprache%3Dde%2Crwb%3Dtrue.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161006040920/http://www.bmwi.de/English/Redaktion/Pdf/energy-concept%2Cproperty%3Dpdf%2Cbereich%3Dbmwi%2Csprache%3Den%2Crwb%3Dtrue.pdf to http://www.bmwi.de/English/Redaktion/Pdf/energy-concept%2Cproperty%3Dpdf%2Cbereich%3Dbmwi%2Csprache%3Den%2Crwb%3Dtrue.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160920202129/https://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/V/vierter-monitoring-bericht-energie-der-zukunft-englische-kurzfassung%2Cproperty%3Dpdf%2Cbereich%3Dbmwi2012%2Csprache%3Dde%2Crwb%3Dtrue.pdf to https://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/V/vierter-monitoring-bericht-energie-der-zukunft-englische-kurzfassung%2Cproperty%3Dpdf%2Cbereich%3Dbmwi2012%2Csprache%3Dde%2Crwb%3Dtrue.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

G20 Energy Ministers on energy transitions

Hello fellow Wikipedians, Following the recent G20 meeting, I would add: In June 2018, at their G20 Summit in Argentina, the G20 Energy Ministers ‘welcome(d) the approach of Argentina’s G20 Presidency, which recognises that there are different possible national paths to achieve cleaner energy systems - while promoting sustainability, resilience and energy security - under the term “transitions” (in plural). This view reflects the fact that each G20 member - according to its stage of development - has a unique and diverse energy system as starting point, with different energy resources, demand dynamics, technologies, stock of capital, geographies and cultures.’ DannyatIOGP (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Big chance in article

Why is the lead text with a lot of references replace by a text with almost no references? [1] Maybe some changes are good, but this is difficult to check because there is such a big chance at once in the article. Ok, for me for the removal of the table about Germany, but for the lead section change I have a big doubt. --PJ Geest (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was… no consensus. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Only 4 paragraphs here are about energy transitions in general or in history. So I propose to merge Renewable energy transition into Energy transition as I think apart from those 4 paragraphs they are pretty much the same subject. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I was going to support based on the fact that there are two large sections in Renewable energy transition that should not be there - "Technologies (3)" is frankly superfluous (we have extensive articles on each of these topics; link, don't repeat), and "Legislation (4)" should be under Energy_transition#United_States in this article. But on further consideration, the "Economic aspects (5)" and "Social aspects (6)" sections are not covered here, rather specific to the fossil -> renewable case, and well developed. I would suggest a better solution would be to cut Renewable energy transition down by removing sections 3 and 4, and keeping the rest as a standalone. Energy transition could well be expanded into other instances (e.g. the coal -> oil case), and nailing it down to fossil -> renewable at this point might be counterproductive. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you could put a hatnote on both articles so readers know what is where?

• Support The two articles overlap in a very big amount, pretty much the same subject. --PJ Geest (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.