Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sustainable energy/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 October 2021 [1].

---

Sustainable energy

Nominator(s): Clayoquot and Femkemilene Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Over the past 2.5 years, this article has been completely rewritten from high-quality sources. I believe it’s now global in scope, reflects the most current accepted knowledge on the topic with balanced coverage of its many aspects, and gives the general reader an understandable overview of a complex topic. In the past six months, this article has been given Good Article status, copyediting, and a round of in-depth Peer Review, and we've incorporated very valuable feedback from these processes. Thanks in advance for taking the time to read this; we look forward to your comments. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Image review licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 21:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

I will leave some comments soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead:

• "Definitions of sustainable energy typically include environmental aspects such as greenhouse gas emissions, and social and economic aspects such as energy poverty" - The comma before "and" is unnecessary. Unless this is a serial list with an Oxford comma and more than 2 terms (which this does not appear to be), if the clause that follows isn't a standalone sentence, you can usually do without a comma before "and". Additionally, do you mean "There are many definitions of sustainable energy, most of which include..."

  You're right. Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Switching from coal to natural gas has environmental benefits" - Has environmental benefits in the short term, I assume.

  It arguably has environmental benefits in the long term as well, as coal emits a lot more CO2 per unit of energy generated. Should the lead say something about this? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Clayoquot, yes, I think it would be good to mention that briefly. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  I added "including lower greenhouse gas emissions". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The global energy system, which is 85% based on fossil fuels" - This is worded awkwardly. Something like "The global energy system derives 85% of its output from fossil fuels" or "Eighty-five percent of the global energy system is based on fossil fuels" may work better.

  Great suggestion. Reworded. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "the Paris Agreement" - This may be well known now, but I would put a date to this, like the "2015 Paris Agreement", since this may get a bit out of context later.

  Done Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "To make deep cuts in emissions" - "Cuts" sounds informal, I'd just say "decreases".

  Changed to "reductions", which is more usual for the literature. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Well-designed government policies that promote energy system transformation can lower greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality simultaneously, and in many cases can also increase energy security." - Similar to my first point, the comma that precedes "and" is unnecessary. I'd check for this throughout the article.

  Done this one. Will start looking for the rest. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  Done, I think - I took on a comma-scrutinizing trip through the article.

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Definitions and background:

• "1987 report, Our Common Future." - This comma may be omitted.

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "sustainable development as development" - The repetition of "development" in such close succession is awkward, so I would suggest rephrasing this as something like "It defined sustainable development as meeting 'the needs ...'"

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Another thing I noticed is an inconsistency in the usage of an Oxford comma. "environmental, economic, and social dimensions" uses it; "access to affordable and reliable energy for all people, workers' rights and land rights" does not. I would standardize this through the article.

  Most of them were Oxford, so tried to make consistent. Likely that I missed at least one. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  I searched for the word "and" throughout the article and found a few more places to add Oxford commas. I think this item is done now. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The international Paris Agreement on climate change" - Would mentioning the year of the agreement be effective here, too?

  Done, not quite sure. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "World Health Organization (WHO) recommended limits" - This should be "World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended limits", because "recommended" is a suffix to "WHO"; i.e. the WHO recommended the limits, so there should be a dash.

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "which causes in an estimated" - "which causes an estimated"?

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• (Image caption) "A woman in rural Rajasthan,India collects firewood. The use of wood and other polluting fuels for cooking causes millions of deaths each year from indoor and outdoor air pollution." - There should be a space after the comma after "Rajasthan" and a corresponding comma after "India". But more to the point, the image pushes down the next graphic, the map of people with access to energy. I would recommend relocating the image (or just removing it if the image isn't essential).

  Corrected caption, not yet puzzled with image placement. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've removed the other figure, as I found it difficult to understand without zooming in. Too much of the text / graph could only be understood on the full-screen image. Femke (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Energy conservation:

• "Paris Agreement" is already linked above; I think it can be unlinked per MOS:DUPLINK.

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• "use less materials" - This should be "use less material" (where "material" is a generic uncountable noun) or "use fewer materials".

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• "development of energy-efficient infrastructure to encourage changes in transport modes" - Toward the aforementioned public transport, walking, and cycling?

  Yes. Would you like to see this added? If modes is jargon, happy to of course, but prefer to keep sentence length lowish. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  "Modes" is fine, but I think the clarification would also help. Epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "United Nations targets for 2030 include a doubling of the rate of improvement in energy efficiency" - I think this should be rephrased slightly because it currently is an awkward phrasing. Do you mean something like "The United Nations aims to double the rate of improvement in energy efficiency by 2030"?

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• "however improvements have slowed in recent years" - Any specific decades?

  Done. Femke (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Efficiency improvements often lead to a rebound effect in which consumers use the money they save to buy more energy-intensive goods and services.[43] Recent technical efficiency improvements in transport and buildings have been largely offset by trends in consumer behaviour, such as purchasing larger vehicles and homes." - To me, the second sentence seems like a continuation of the first sentence. So would this be "As a result, recent technical efficiency improvements..."?

  I've combined the sentences with "for example". FemkeMilene (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Epicgenius:, did you want to have a look over the rest of the article still? No hurries of course :). Femke (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll conduct the rest of the review now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Sustainable energy sources:

• "far less greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels." - I'm not sure if this should be "far fewer...emissions" or if "emissions" is uncountable here, so I'm not going to explicitly recommend changing it, but I'd recommend taking a look.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Femke (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "providing access by 2030.[49] United Nations targets for 2030" - "Providing access by 2030" refers to the targets, correct?

Not as far as I know although the main authors may correct me - tweaked to hopefully clarify Chidgk1 (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The panels are mounted on top of buildings, or installed in utility-scale solar parks." - The comma is unnecessary as this isn't a serial list, and the last part of the sentence does not stand alone as a clause.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Solar panels require energy for their production, equivalent to under two years of their own generation" - Not really an issue, just a general question, but does this mean it takes fewer than two years for a solar panel to produce as much energy as was used for its production?

  I've changed to your wording. Femke (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Also a general question, are there specific countries that specifically stand out for their use of solar, wind, and hydro? If so, are they worth mentioning?

  Historically, Japan/Germany for solar, and Denmark for wind and Brazil for hydro. For hydro there is enough geographic concentration that it's worth mentioning. Sun and wind are less remarkable. Femke (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Turbine blades are not fully recyclable and research into methods of manufacturing easier-to-recycle blades is ongoing" - This sentence would benefit from a comma between "recyclable" and "and".

  Done. Femke (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Power is produced from the steam created from underground reservoirs" - Should this be "created in" or "created by" underground reservoirs?

  In. Femke (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "It can either be burned to produce heat and to generate electricity or converted to modern biofuels such as biodiesel and ethanol" - I think this sentence structure could be revised to one of two options: "It can either be burned ... or be converted", or "It can be either burned ... or converted".

  Done. Femke (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "In the United States, corn-based ethanol has replaced around 10% of motor gasoline, which requires a significant proportion of the yearly corn harvest" - Does the ethanol or the motor gasoline require a significant proportion of the yearly corn harvest? If the former, then the phrase "which requires a significant proportion of the yearly corn harvest" should be moved to just after "corn-based ethanol".

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Deployment of BECCS at scales described in some climate change mitigation pathways would require converting large amounts of cropland" - I assume said pathways describe large-scale deployment.

Depends what you mean by "large" - personally I cannot see that happening anyway because surely the aviation industry would outbid them for cropland to make biofuel for long-haul flights. So I would like to remove the sentence entirely but I defer to the main editors. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Switching from coal to natural gas reduces emissions in the short term, however in the long term it does not provide a path to net-zero emissions." - I would suggest "Switching from coal to natural gas reduces emissions in the short term, but it does not provide a path to net-zero emissions in the long term." for consistency in sentence structure.

I would like to remove this sentence as some reliable sources describe it as a "bridge fuel" for example https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/16/the-first-big-energy-shock-of-the-green-era But I defer to the main editors. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "progress has been limited" - Economics of nuclear power plants may be an unexpected link for this one per WP:EGG, but I'm not sure if there's a better way to address this.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Energy system transformation

• "Some energy-intensive technologies and processes are difficult to electrify" - Is this related to the second point of the preceding bulleted list? I assume this is regarding converting energy sources to electricity rather than using an energy source directly.

Amended. If still unclear please ping me Chidgk1 (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Building overcapacity for wind and solar generation can help to ensure" - "can help ensure" may be more concise but I don't know if this is different in other varieties of English.

Done - fine with us Saudi Arabians of wind Chidgk1 (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Ambitious climate policy would see a doubling of energy share consumed as electricity by 2050, from 20% in 2020" - A doubling from 2020?

seems correct and clear to me already - if you think unclear please could you explain further Chidgk1 (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Also, I think the em-dash (as used in this section) would be unspaced, while an en-dash would be spaced, per MOS:DASH.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Some air conditioning units are still made to use refrigerants that are greenhouse gases; as some countries have not ratified the Kigali Amendment to only use climate-friendly refrigerants" - The semicolon should be a comma since the second part of the sentence wouldn't be a standalone clause.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• What is LPG? I don't think the acronym is too widely known compared to others.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Are there figures for how much buildings use energy in comparison to the whole? (Overall I couldn't really find too much to nitpick about this section.)

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Government policies

• "or new buildings are heated by electricity instead of gas" - This should be "or that new buildings..."

Ha as British English has been specified for the article I trump you - er I mean I out-biden you Chidgk1 (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Can carbon pricing be briefly described in a few words?

Unfortunately I cannot think of a way of describing it using a number of words between 2 and many Chidgk1 (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I've given an example, and made another sentence simpler. Femke (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "These place tariffs on imports from countries with less stringent climate policies, to ensure that industries subject to internal carbon prices remain competitive." - The comma here probably is not necessary.

I think it is necessary for screenreaders to pause very briefly Chidgk1 (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "In the fossil fuel industry, 6 million jobs would be lost" - Would any other industries be hurt by a transition?

Good question - I was surprised to read that in Turkey where I live economists say some jobs would be lost in low-skilled industries such as textiles due to workers moving to higher skilled industries such as our solar module and wind turbine factories - but I am afraid I don't have any info on global effects on other industries Chidgk1 (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The source is a bit vague on where those jobs are lost, but mentions mining and fossil industry. Reading the underlying report, it's clear that this number includes other sectors. I've amended the text. Femke (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Finance

• "which are not attractive to the private sector" - I guess this implies financing is provided by both governments and the private sector, but government funding is more prevalent in low-income countries?

Yes the source says " International public financial flows are critical to reach these investment levels and to leverage the necessary amounts of private capital, especially in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has dramatically increased investors’ risk perception and shifted

public funding priorities in developing countries." but just copying that would be a bit long. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The Paris Agreement includes a pledge of an extra $100 billion per year " - Immediately after the signing of the agreement, or by some certain date? This is a pledge from all signatory countries, I guess.

As far as I know there is no timescale - but I have clarified re countries Chidgk1 (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Overall, the article looks good. Most of my nitpicks are grammatical and not content-based. Epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Epicgenius I hope Femke and I have answered to your satisfaction. I am not watching this article but please ping me if any of my changes (or non-changes) are not sufficient. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Support - I don't see any significant issues with the article. There are a few minor things that were more rhetorical than in need of actual repair - for example, my "A doubling from 2020?" comment was more of a confirmation than an actual query. But they shouldn't impact the FAC. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by JJE

Is it imperative to have citations in the lead? I am not sure whether the sources like swissinfo, New York Times, www.canada.ca and Vox are good enough for a FA. Images seem well placed. Is ourwordindata a good source for File:Elec-fossil-nuclear-renewables.svg, File:Global primary energy consumption, OWID.svg, File:Energy use per person 2019 - OWID.svg and File:People-without-electricity-country-2016.svg? I remember reliability concerns in the context of their COVID-19 coverage. Some of them are also old. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Jo-Jo, it's good to see you here. Femke, do you have any thoughts on how we're using OWID? I'll start looking into the other sourcing issues. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo do you have links to any past discussions about OWID where concerns were raised? I searched the Talk archives of WikiProject Medicine and could only find positive things being said about OWID's maps.[2] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't really familiar with OWID before working on this article, but became slowly convinced its a HQRS based on its exclusive use of HQ sources itself, its transparency/explanation of data use and the fact it won a few awards for scientific reporting. Also curious to indicators to the contrary. For each of those images, we have the most recently available. FemkeMilene (talk) 04:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems like I was mentally confusing worldometers with OWID, so nevermind what I said about OWID. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I removed or replaced the Vox, Swissinfo, and Canada.ca refs. Canada.ca is the official website of the government of Canada so in general it's a solid source, but the source I replaced it with is somewhat stronger and more neutral for this particular claim. As for the New York Times, my impression from WP:RS and WP:Identifying reliable sources (science) is that it's a high-quality source for news and current issues but not for "science". Jo-Jo can you elaborate on your concern about the NYT, e.g. are there particular claims sourced to the NYT that should be sourced to a non-news source? Also, do you have the same concerns about using the BBC as a source? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

"news and current issues but not for "science"." that's exactly the concern I have. It's one thing to use a source like that to establish that something has been noticed (I use NYT on Uturuncu for this reason) but it's a different matter if you are using it as a source for a fact.

However, I am not sure how widely shared my concerns are. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, you're one of the very few brave souls who's volunteered to review this article, so I'm interested in your concerns whether or not they're widely shared ;) The article's current use of the NYT is for the following statements:

1. In Malaysia and Indonesia, clearing forests to produce palm oil for biodiesel has led to serious social and environmental effects, as these forests are critical carbon sinks and habitats for endangered species.
2. Developing natural gas infrastructure risks carbon lock-in and stranded assets, where new fossil infrastructure either commits to decades of carbon emissions, or has to be written off before it makes a profit.
3. Nearly all of the world's current supply of hydrogen is created from fossil fuels.
4. Heat pumps provide both winter heat and summer air conditioning through a single appliance.
5. Energy-specific programs and regulations have historically been the mainstays of efforts to reduce fossil fuel emissions.
6. Carbon pricing has encountered strong political pushback in some jurisdictions, whereas energy-specific policies tend to be politically safer.
7. Some governments are exploring the use of carbon border adjustments, which place tariffs on imports from countries with less stringent climate policies, to ensure that their industries remain competitive.

These are all factual claims, but they're in different disciplines. I'd say #1 is a science claim so I agree that one should be replaced with a scholarly reference. The rest are claims about technology, economics, and policy issues, which the NYT is generally very good at. Looking at claims #2 through #7, do you think all of them would benefit from different sourcing? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'd prefer if most of that were sourced to things like textbooks and academic sources since many of these statements are really academic ones not journalistic things. But one issue with FAC is when reviewers start demanding that articles comply with personal preferences that aren't based on the actual FA criteria. So I am a little uncertain on how much to push this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I think a case can also be made that #2 would benefit from a scientific citation, but I feel #3-#7 are fine. FemkeMilene (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll look for better sourcing for # 1 and 2, and also 3, 5, and 6 as I can probably do these quickly. My thinking on when to use academic vs. journalistic sources is a bit different from how Jo-Jo approached sourcing in Uturuncu: There are times when it's hard to find academic sourcing for a basic fact because the academic literature assumes the reader knows it already; #4 is a good example of this. #7 is another kind of statement for which I think news sources are valuable because they have the most up-to-date information. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I added new refs for #1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. Let's get ourselves together again at some point to have a broader discussion around how to define "high quality" sourcing. While it's fresh in my mind, background information like #5 can be very difficult to source in the academic literature. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Lede is now reference-free. Femke (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Some more comments. Citation format looks consistent. Is there any kind of history behind the sustainable energy concept? Political opposition and debate? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The Definitions section covers the history and evolution of the concept. In terms of political opposition, the Nuclear energy section and the Government policies section describe some controversial aspects of sustainable energy. There are differences between academics on how to define "sustainable energy" but I didn't find evidence that these differences have been political in nature. Is there something in particular that you'd like to see more detail on? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I wanted to make sure that the lack of discussion of these aspects was deliberate & well-justified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Any more comments @Jo-Jo Eumerus:? And would you maybe be willing to turn this into a source review? Femke (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but between moving houses and User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Ojos del Salado I am a little indisposed at the moment. I'll try to get a source review done here, but it may take days. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'll try to make this now on the basis of this version. Are these sources well reputed enough to be quoted in Wikipedia voice? They look like they might be advocacy sources - reliable but not necessarily for a broad judgment. Why does #21 and #137 have a quote? Sometimes publishers are italicized and sometimes they aren't. Ditto for links. I don't see any other citation that prints out the website like #168. Some references link the organization(s) and others don't. Beyond this it seems like the source usage here fits the FA requirements. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

IEA and IRENA are considered the two authorities on energy matters. Both have a bit of a bias: the IEA has a history of underestimating renewables, whereas IRENA is sometimes said to be too optimistic of renewables (but has also underestimated solar historically). They are both intergovernmental organisations. IEA is a part of the OECD, whereas IRENA has a more global membership. As high-quality sources, they tend to agree. Where they disagree (mostly about future projections), we've either used indirect voice or used a different high-quality source.

The quotes in 21 and 137 are scars of an old edit war. I think they can be deleted. @Clayoquot:?

Nikkimaria has just taught me below how to use publisher/work properly, so bear with us while we're correcting that. Femke (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine with deleting the quotes. Good description of the biases of the IEA and IRENA. One of the reasons we relied on the IEA so heavily is that it's historically been perceived as an economic organization rather than an environmental organization. The New York Times recently said, "The influential agency is not an environmental group but an international organization that advises world capitals on energy policy. Formed after the oil crises of the 1970s, the agency’s reports and forecasts are frequently cited by energy companies and investors as a basis for long-term planning."[3] So when the IEA says that the energy system can be made more sustainable, we wouldn't expect the reader to roll their eyes and think, "Of course the IEA would say that". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I removed the quotes. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus I believe we've fixed the consistency issues with the formatting of citations, and all the issues you raised have been addressed now. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, it seems like this passes the source review. Note I didn't do a spot check and I don't know enough about the topic to say whether any major source was missed, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Jens

• achieving this goal will require that emissions be reduced as soon as possible and reach net-zero by mid-century.[16] – is this still up-to-date?

  Yes. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Together with solar thermal, geothermal energy met 2.2% of worldwide demand for heating in buildings in 2019.[78] – That unfortunately doesn't tell us what the share of geothermal energy is without including solar thermal?

  Because it's such a small share of global demand, it's difficult to find a good statistic. Spent about an hour searching. I've replaced it with a Our World in Data source about geothermal energy (heat+power). This source puts it at 0.9% together with tidal and wave. Given that tidal and wave are insignificant, it's probably 0.9% on its own. I've said less than 1% in the body. Femke (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Second-generation biofuels which are produced from non-food plants – only non-food plants, or waste as well?

Good catch. The source says waste is also used. I added it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• My biggest concern so far is the nuclear power controversy section, which I don't think meets WP:NPOV:

• The perceived risk of nuclear accidents has a major influence on public opinion of nuclear energy,[121] although for each unit of energy produced, nuclear energy is far safer than fossil fuel energy and comparable to renewable sources.[122] – This reads like "science" vs "public", which I don't think is true (science itself is split about the topic). And the "perceived risk" sounds a bit as if the public would be ignorant and if the risk would not exist.
• nuclear energy is far safer than fossil fuel energy and comparable to renewable sources – this is stated here as fact, but is certainly not an universally accepted opinion. It obviously depends on how "safe" is defined and measured, and then, there is a risk factor that is very difficult to quantify (e.g., natural disasters, potential terrorist attacks on power plants), especially when accessing the risk for future generations.
• Public opposition often makes nuclear plants politically difficult to implement. – For which parts of the world is this valid? Even in Europe, there is considerable political opposition as well. Can we really blame the "public" here?
• You give a lot of room to the EU expert groups, maybe reduce that to one shorter sentence. There is a similar debate if gas should get the "green" label in the EU, which is not mentioned in the article at all, for example. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Those are all good points. We should describe the aspects of safety that are in any claims about safety, and I think we can summarize the conclusions of the JRC with more nuance than the single word "sustainable". I'll revisit the sources and propose some new wording in the next few days.

W.r.t public opposition, the source says this is an issue "in democratic societies" as opposed to authoritarian governments. I think the current wording already implies that the statement is about countries where public opposition matters. The point this sentence is trying to make is that from a policy maker's perspective, nuclear involves both technical and social challenges/obstacles, regardless of whether the social concerns are justified. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

In trying to rewrite the JRC findings before and especially other expert groups, I found few mainstream sources covering it. I think a short sentence max is better. I had hoped that the EU would have made a decision on this by now. Femke (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

In terms of safely: estimates of mortality from nuclear differ by an order of magnitude between the industry's estimate and Greenpeace's estimate, but all fall squarely below fossil. The problem here may be that people underestimate how deadly fossil fuels are, making this sentence seem more controversial than it is. We can more explicitly put this in the past tense (has been). I agree with Clayoquot that explicitly mentioning mortality rather than the vaguer word safety can be a solution? Femke (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes that sounds reasonable. It needs to be clear that, what is described, is the mortality per unit of energy in the past, and doesn't include potential future disasters that are difficult to predict. But when talking about safety of nuclear power, I think the latter is the main concern of those who oppose it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• How does this sound to replace the first two bullets above: "For each unit of energy produced, nuclear energy has caused far fewer accidental and pollution-related deaths than fossil fuels, and the historic mortality rate of nuclear is comparable to renewable sources."?
• I think "Experts from the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the scientific expert arm of the EU, stated in April 2021 that nuclear power is sustainable.[122] Two other groups of experts—SCHEER (Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks) and the Euratom Article 31 expert group on radiation protection—largely confirmed JRC findings in July 2021" should be deleted. I don't see much point in including the opinions of named expert committees because expert opinions vary on the nuclear issue. It's become apparent over the past few months that the JRC's findings don't even represent an EU-wide consensus.[4] As Jens pointed out we don't, and shouldn't, name supporters for other controversial energy strategies such as fossil fuel switching, hydrogen production from fossil sources with carbon capture, and the burning of wood pellets as fuel.
• Your comment "the latter is the main concern of those who oppose it" inspired me to do some digging on the unpredictable disasters (e.g. terrorism) and on the reasons for public opposition. A 2010 OECD report (p.27) found that terrorism and waste disposal were the biggest reasons for opposition (note that this report was pre-Fukushima). A 2017 U.S. study that asked people to give reasons for opposition in their own words found that "Dangerous, unsafe, accident, leaks" was the biggest reason, which is a much more general concept than accidents. In light of these two sources, it's probably undue weight to say that "The perceived risk of nuclear accidents has a major influence on public opinion of nuclear energy" so I think we should remove that.
• I drafted how the above three changes would look [here].
• If we remove the two sentences about the JRC above, we should add something else positive. What do you all think of adding a sentence saying that multiple analyses have found that nuclear power is crucial for reaching climate targets, sourced to this new UNECE report (p. 1) and the IEA Net Zero report (p. 14)? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• That all reads very good! Regarding your last point, you already have this: Climate change mitigation pathways consistent with ambitious goals typically see an increase in power supply from nuclear.[10] – This seems to be almost the same content, so maybe the new addition should be combined with/connected to this? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The IPCC SR15 still managed to create a 1.5 scenario without nuclear iirc, so the word crucial may contradict that. More importantly, that would make the wording stronger than for solar "Various projections of future energy use identify solar PV as one of the main sources of energy generation in a sustainable mix.". However, solar plays a bigger role than nuclear in all those scenarios. We already have a sentence about nuclear's role in reaching net zero. Don't think we need to add another. Femke (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Great point about solar and wind having robust consensus for a much larger upscaling. I didn't know that the IPCC created scenarios for 1.5 degrees - can you point me to the section number for that?. I thought they limited themselves to analyzing the scenarios that had been created by others, and in this analysis they recognize that some scenarios no longer see a role for nuclear fission by the end of the century.

Here is a different idea for adding a positive statement: How about "After shutting down nuclear plants in the 2010s, Germany and Japan both increased coal-fired electricity production to make up for the loss of capacity." Sources: NBER, Wired, and Financial Times.? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if this isn't simplifying it too much though. Just because there is a correlation doesn't necessarily mean there is causality. In Germany, the share of gas in power production decreased during the same time from 12.1% to 10.5%, even though gas was supposed to replace nuclear (together with the renewables). The problem was the European Union Emissions Trading System: The prices for CO2 emissions became extremely cheap in the 2010s, thus favouring coal (see graph in linked Wiki article). Source for this (although a German one): [5]. Regarding Japan, the article you linked is behind a paywall, this is far from ideal. Do you have another source for it? In any case: Do we need an additional positive note about nuclear at all? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Germany, see also this graph for context: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung#/media/Datei:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg It's in German again, but black and brown are coal, purple is gas, red is nuclear. It also shows that since 2013, coal and nuclear are decreasing in Germany at the same time. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jens that we don't need another positive note about nuclear. Almost the entire second paragraph is already positive. The third paragraph is quite temperate in how negatives are described.

The German case is indeed quiet complex. For instance, their anti-nuclear movement was important in the solar revolution.[6]. Femke (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

OK. I'll implement the other changes I proposed, and won't add a new positive at this time. Fingers crossed that these changes won't destabilize the consensus for this section. Thank you both for a very interesting discussion. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Make sure that the images illustrate what is described in the text:

• The image "Construction of salt tanks to store thermal energy": I don't see this discussed in the text at all. And thermal energy from what source? I don't find this very helpful without more explanation.

• I've replaced it with a battery storage facility. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a high-quality picture of a battery home storage pack, which may be even clearer. Femke (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The outdoor section of a heat pump" image: heat pumps are discussed further down but not where this image appears. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I've changed both the caption and the text to make the connection clear. The other logical location, buildings, already has too many images. Femke (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• There now is a formatting issue (stray wikitext) in the "Environmental issues" section? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Solved. Femke (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Excellent article overall, thanks for working on this immensely important topic. As soon as the nuclear power section is improved on, I should be ready to support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Trainsandotherthings

• "The combustion of coal releases gases which form into ground-level ozone and acid rain, especially if the coal is not cleaned before combustion." This comes immediately after a sentence talking about fossil fuels and biomass in general. It might be good to reword this to emphasize that it is not just coal which is the problem (though it is the worst offender).

Reworded to cover more sources of the precursor chemicals to acid rain. BTW I also removed the part about ground-level ozone as it's only one of the types of air pollutant that are dangerous to health (another major one is particulate matter). Femkemilene might want to do further adjusting here. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the section on energy conservation, I recommend elaborating a bit more on what energy intensity really means. If statistics are available, I'd suggest their inclusion. Without any units, the concept seems too abstract to me. What does it mean to double the rate of energy efficiency improvement, and are statistics available for that?

Great ideas, done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Consider changing the section titled "Energy sources" to "Sustainable energy sources" for clarity.

Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Costs of solar photovoltaic cells have dropped rapidly, driving strong growth in worldwide capacity." If possible, quantify this for the reader. I know that the costs have quite greatly dropped, but quantifying would make this easier to understand, in my opinion.

I am sure there must be lots of quantification in more specific articles - if done here too it might just become a burden for future editors to keep up to date Chidgk1 (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• The paragraph on concentrated solar power feels out of place in its current location. I would move it ahead of the paragraph above about solar panel disposal.

Risk of doing that would be that readers might think that concentrated solar power uses panels, whereas any panels are just co-located PV Chidgk1 (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The noise and flickering light created by the turbines can be annoying and constrain construction near densely populated areas." I would reword this to "can be considered annoying by humans". As written, it feels inappropriate to make such an objective statement in Wikipedia's voice.

Reworded as "can cause annoyance", which is how the sources often phrase it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• I would swap the order of the last two paragraphs in the hydropower section.

Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the geothermal section, I would include a brief explanation of how the heat used comes from the Earth's mantle. I would also mention how geothermal can cause issues with the nearby water table.

As the geothermal section is already almost as long as the solar section I think adding water table info would be too much detail. Also the current "deep underground" is less technical than "mantle" and I suspect some of the heat comes from radioactivity in the crust. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the geothermal section, can you elaborate on what "median life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions" means? It is unclear to me, and I imagine it would be more unclear to an uninformed reader.

Reworded. It means adding up all the emissions of all aspects of what it takes to locate and extract geothermal energy, but I think this is implicit. Let me know if you think it should be said explicitly. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the biofuels section, I would add a mention of Landfill gas utilization.

That's an interesting article. Unfortunately I couldn't squeeze this in without giving undue weight to landfill gas, which is a small aspect of bioenergy. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Two tidal barrage systems in France and in South Korea make up 90% of total production." I recommend a clarification that this means 90% of total marine energy production globally, not just in those two countries specifically.

  Reworded. Femke (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I will add more comments on the rest of the article in the near future. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• "Switching from coal to natural gas has advantages in terms of sustainability." I would change this to "Switching from coal or oil to natural gas..."

  Typically, oil is used in transport, while coal and gas are used in power generation. This would unnecessary lengthen the sentence. Femke (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "For a given unit of energy produced, the life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of natural gas are around 40 times the emissions of wind or nuclear energy but are much less than coal." If possible, I would provide a number to compare natural gas to coal, to give a better sense of scale.

  Just one sentence further :). Femke (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  You are right, I suppose what I meant is to give a number for the emissions of coal, per unit burned (ex. The burning of coal produces XYZ kilograms of CO2 per BTU or KWH). It may not be necessary though. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  Even as a researcher in the field, I don't have an intuition for these numbers. I don't think they will convey information to our readers. Femke (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Building gas-fired power plants and gas pipelines is promoted as a way to phase out coal- and wood-burning pollution and increase energy supply in some African countries with fast-growing populations and economies, but this practice is controversial." Promoted by who, exactly? And who says it is controversial? I don't doubt the accuracy, but a reader may want to know who these views belong to.

Rewrote this sentence to be global rather than Africa-centric and to convey facts rather than opinions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The greenhouse gas emissions of fossil fuel and biomass power plants can be significantly reduced through carbon capture and storage (CCS)." Consider a wikilink for carbon capture and storage.

  Has been wikilinked before. Femke (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the Fossil fuel switching and mitigation section, the last paragraph goes back and forth between cost and efficiency for CCS. It might be better to talk about one of them in the first half of the paragraph, and the other in the second half.

Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "and nuclear power plants can create fissile material that could be used for nuclear weapon proliferation." I would either delete the word "can", or reword this to say something along the lines of "nuclear power plants can be used to create fissile material...".

Deleted "can". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The perceived risk of nuclear accidents has a major influence on public opinion of nuclear energy, although for each unit of energy produced, nuclear energy is far safer than fossil fuel energy and comparable to renewable sources. Public opposition often makes nuclear plants politically difficult to implement." These two sentences are in a paragraph that deals with the debate over sustainability over nuclear energy. As these two sentences are about safety and public opinion, which is a different issue, I recommend moving them out of this paragraph and into their own new paragraph. This could also go with the last paragraph of the section, which mentions progress in nuclear development has been limited recently.

I shortened this paragraph considerably to address other comments in this FAC. Please let us know if you have further suggestions for reorganization. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The emissions reductions necessary to keep global warming below 2 °C will require a system-wide transformation of the way energy is produced, distributed, stored, and consumed." Change will to would, as unfortunately there's no real evidence the world has agreed to make the necessary changes.

My memory (which may be biased) is that "will" is more consistent with the sources. The world agreed on a 2 °C (or less); "would" would carry a bit of an implication that we're still making up our minds on the target rather than procrastinating on execution. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Some energy-intensive technologies and processes are difficult to electrify, including aviation, shipping, and steelmaking." I recommend adding a brief explanation as to why these areas are difficult to electrify.

Great idea. Added in the Transport and Industry sections. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Full decarbonization of the global energy system is expected to take several decades and can mostly be achieved by deploying existing technology." Change technology to technologies, plural.

Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The International Energy Agency states that further innovation in the energy sector, such as in battery technologies and carbon-neutral fuels, is needed to reach net-zero emissions by 2050." This would be a good place to mention the current issues with batteries, and what changes in technology are needed to make them work as a part of sustainable energy.

Working on this one. The issues with grid batteries are somewhat different from the issues with vehicle batteries. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Added issues to the Energy storage and the Transport sections. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The transition to a zero-carbon energy system would bring strong co-benefits for human health:" Nothing specifically wrong here, but make sure the article is consistent in tense. This is a hypothetical (would) but in other places "will" is used instead, implying a certainty. Double check that will is only used when appropriate.

Changed to "will" Chidgk1 (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Historically, several countries have made rapid economic gains through coal usage, particularly in Asia." I feel that this is unfairly singling out Asia, when the same can be said for Europe and North America.

Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Pumped hydro storage and power-to-gas (converting electricity to gas and back) with capacity for multi-month usage has been implemented in some locations." Can you list any examples of implementation here, particularly installations that can be wikilinked to?

  I think linking to individual installations would be undue. We don't do that for others either. Femke (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "One of the easiest and fastest ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to phase out coal-fired power plants and increase renewable electricity generation." Consider rewording to "phase out coal-fired power plants in favor of increased renewable energy generation" to emphasize that both steps must be combined.

  Not quite. Going from coal to nuclear is also a really good option for GHG reductions. Femke (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Ambitious climate policy would see a doubling of energy consumed as electricity by 2050, from 20% in 2020." This can be reworded as "Ambitious climate policy would see a doubling of the percentage of energy consumption used for electricity by 2050, from 20% in 2020."

  Rewritten. Femke (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The predominant method is steam methane reforming in which hydrogen is produced from a chemical reaction between steam and methane, the main component of natural gas." Add a comma after reforming.

  Done. Femke (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Disadvantages of hydrogen as an energy carrier include high costs of storage and distribution due to hydrogen's explosivity, its large bulk compared to other fuels, and its tendency to make pipes brittle." I would replace "bulk" with "volume".

  Done. Femke (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• The transport section under energy usage technologies could use some expansion. Some points to mention here:

• Note that rail transportation for freight is more fuel efficient than by truck, and therefore more sustainable
• Developments in making freight transport sustainable, such as battery electric locomotives, electric trucks, and alternative fuels
• The significant greenhouse gas emissions from ships as a consequence of bunker fuel
• Less use of aviation for transportation
• Mention what percentage of greenhouse gas emissions come from transport, I believe it is a significant percentage

I added some info but think some of what you mention would be too much detail for this article Chidgk1 (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I need to take a quick break, and then I will keep going through the article and make further suggestions. Great work on the article, I know I'm making a lot of comments but I am really nitpicking here, and I fully expect you will not adopt some of them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Even more arbitrary break

• In the buildings and cookiPng suggestion, I recommend linking to Geothermal heating. Geothermal energy is mentioned already, but without a wikilink.

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Heat pumps provide both winter heat and summer air conditioning through a single appliance." I would remove the words winter and summer to get to the basic point you are trying to make here: heat pumps can do both heating and air conditioning.

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The IEA estimates heat pumps could provide over 90% of space and water heating requirements globally." This is not 100%, so that would imply there are situations they will not work. If so, can a mention of situations where they are not feasible be made here?

Looking at the source I don't think it says they are not feasible in other situations, but implies that there might be a few cases where they are less carbon efficient than gas boilers - even if we knew what those cases might be (very difficult to put larger radiators in a historic palace as have to move each brick in turn perhaps, blocks of flats which already have gas-fired communal heating maybe) I think they should be in the heat pump article and are too much detail to go here. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Cooling of buildings can be made more efficient through passive building design, planning that minimises the urban heat island effect, and district cooling systems that cool multiple buildings with piped cold water." As written, the reader might be led to think that passive building design = planning that minimizes the urban heat island effect, when they are two different things. A rewording is in order here, along with a brief explanation of what passive building design means (I read the article and I'm still confused personally).

Changed the link to go up to the comma and to another article. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Air conditioning requires large amounts of electricity and is not always affordable to poorer households." Change "to" to "for".

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Cooking with these fuels is generally unsustainable because they release harmful smoke and because harvesting wood can lead to forest degradation." Add a comma here after unsustainable, and another after smoke.

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The universal adoption of clean cooking facilities, which are already ubiquitous in rich countries, would dramatically improve health and have minimal effects on climate." As written, this seems to imply that clean cooking facilities would not help with sustainable energy, which I don't think is the intended message. I would reword to say something like "and have minimal negative effects on climate."

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The more energy-intensive activities in industry have the lowest shares of renewable energy as they face limitations in generating heat at temperatures over 200 °C (390 °F)." For consistency, either change "more" to "most", or change "lowest" to "lower".

  Done. Femke (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The production of plastic, cement, and fertilisers also requires significant amounts of energy, with limited possibilities available to decarbonise." Check subject-verb agreement here.

  Production ... requires, seems correct. Femke (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• In government policies, add a date for the quote in the box.

  Done. Femke (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Environmental regulations have been used for over fifty years to promote more sustainable use of energy." For the sake of the article standing the test of time, I recommend changing this to instead say something like" Environmental regulation have been used since the 1970s..."

  Done. Femke (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Urban planning to discourage sprawl can reduce energy use in local transport and buildings while enhancing quality of life." Reword this to something like "Urban planning which discourages sprawl" or "Urban planning policies which discourage sprawl"

  Done. Femke (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Government-sponsored research, procurement, and incentive policies have historically been critical to the development and maturation of clean energy technologies such as solar PV and lithium batteries." I suggest refraining from using the PV acronym here, as it may confuse readers into thinking there are three examples here instead of two.

  Done. Femke (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Carbon taxes provide a source of revenue that can be used to lower other taxes" I'd add that this revenue would go to governments specifically.

  Not done. Already in definition of tax. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Some governments are exploring the use of carbon border adjustments," Can you name any examples here?

  Done. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "which place tariffs on imports from countries with less stringent climate policies" I would make tariff a wikilink.

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Countries may support renewables to create jobs." This sentence could be reworded, something like "Countries may also support renewables as a means of creating jobs."

  Not done. Average sentence length already a bit high. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The International Labour Organization estimates that efforts to limit global warming to 2 °C..." I suggest noting that the ILO is a UN body.

Not sure the extra words are worth it but if you or anyone else think better it could become "The International Labour Organization, a United Nations agency, estimates ...Chidgk1 (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "It predicts that 24 million new jobs would be created in areas such as renewable electricity generation, improving energy-efficiency in buildings, and the transition to electric vehicles, while 6 million jobs in the fossil fuel industry would be lost." Is there a timescale for this, say "over the next 10 years"? It seems unlikely this would happen immediately.

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Underfunding is particularly acute in the least developed countries." It would be worthwhile to mention that this is not necessarily an intentional choice, but may instead be a consequence of low development and low centralization, which means these countries simply are unable to afford sufficient investment in sustainable energy. Also notable is that the least developed countries are some of the most vulnerable, especially low lying island nations in the Pacific.

  The source doesn't really specify, except that it's not attractive to the private sector. I added "which are not attractive to the private sector". Femke (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The Paris Agreement includes a pledge of additional funds for poorer countries of $100 billion per year for climate change mitigation and adaptation," Reword this along the lines of "The Paris Agreement includes a pledge of $100 billion per year from developed nations for poorer countries to support climate change mitigation and adaptation."

  Rewritten. Femke (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Direct global fossil fuel subsidies were $319 billion in 2017, and $5.2 trillion when indirect costs such as air pollution are priced in." This is a bit confusing as written. I suggest rewriting this to something like "Direct global fossil fuel subsidies were $319 billion in 2017, but equivalent to $5.2 trillion when including the indirect costs of consequences such as air pollution."

  Rewritten. Femke (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Ending these could lead to a 28% reduction in global carbon emissions and a 46% reduction in air pollution deaths." Add "global" before "air pollution deaths."

  Not done, already implied

• "Funding for clean energy has been largely unaffected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and pandemic-related economic stimulus packages offer possibilities for a green recovery." The two parts of this sentence disagree with each other. Change "and" to "but."

  The word "but" implies to me that funding would have been expected to rise. As the source talks about the opposite (expected to drop with the rest of the economy), I think the word 'and' is correct. Femke (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

That concludes my comments. I'm happy to further discuss any of my comments here, I'll keep this page watchlisted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

When all of the things I've mentioned have been addressed, I am strongly inclined to support this FAC. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Trainsandotherthings I just picked off the one or 2 remaining things - I am not watching this article but ping me if any of my changes (or non-changes) are not to your liking. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Everything I've commented about has been addressed one way or the other. As such, consider me in support of this FAC. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• The definition in the first sentence is very close to being a direct quote - I would suggest making it one

Done Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Nuclear power is a low-carbon source and has a safety record comparable to wind and solar". I see discussion of fatality rates in the body, but "safety record" is a broader claim - is there a source for this?

Done Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "its sustainability has been debated because of concerns about ... accidents" is similarly not directly supported, although the article appears to be rebutting this concern

Added supporting statement in the body. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the global energy system is responsible for 76% of the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change" - the body qualifies this statistic as "human-caused" emissions

Done Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "causes an estimated 7 million deaths each year". Where is this estimate from? I see numbers in the body, but they don't add up to this

Added to body. I agree the WHO's indoor and outdoor numbers (4.2 million + 3.8 million) don't equal the WHO's total of 7 million, but we can't solve that problem :( Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Buildings in the Solar Settlement at Schlierberg, Germany, produce more energy than they consume. They incorporate rooftop solar panels and are built for maximum energy efficiency." - source?

Good catch. Now reffed. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Utility cycling infrastructure, such as this bike lane in Vancouver, encourages sustainable transport." - source?

Another good catch. I've reffed it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• How did you select which sources to include in the Definitions section? Why OpenLearn?

This was a difficult section to find sources for. At least three of us have indpendently done Google Scholar searches that led to a paper called "Theoretical Aspects of Sustainable Energy", which is a great paper except for the fact that the publisher is predatory. We couldn't cite it because of the predatory publisher, but it led me to the Hammond source which devotes most of a chapter to the issue of how various academics have gone about defining it. So I read that and summarized it. I don't think we really had a selection process - we found so few high-quality sources that we used what we found, if I recall.

I can't remember how we came across the OpenLearn source. It's not university-level, but I don't see any red flags raised in the archives at WP:RSN and the publisher seems legitimate so I don't think it's unreliable. There isn't anything in there that isn't in other sources, but it's the only source on definitions that is free and intended for a general audience so if you don't object I think it's a good one to keep. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's generally unreliable; my question is more, why does it belong in this context. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see now that the Openlearn ref went to an overview page. I've changed the ref to point to the specific page on definitions. Does the inclusion of this page make sense? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN5: the URL provided should be left to the full source rather than the chapter citation

Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• WRI is a publisher not a work. Ditto WHO, check throughout.

  Done specifics, but I don't understand the difference between work and publisher well. I know for NYTimes you should only fill out work, and leave out publisher as it's basically the same.. Femke (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, if the two fields are the same/similar we don't need both. "The publisher is the company, organization or other legal entity that publishes the work being cited", per our documentation. Another way of approaching it is to look at our article on the entity, when one exists - if it's not italicized there, chances are it shouldn't be italicized here. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• If you are going to include domains in the website parameter, be consistent in how these are formatted

Done. Many "website" names were publisher names. I moved them to the publisher parameter. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Don't repeat publisher in the author parameter

  I was wondering about that. We did this because this is consistent with the report's "how to cite". They seem to imply they are both the institutional author and the publisher. Happy to remove it, but wanted to double-check. Femke (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  It's generally fine to adapt "how to cite" guidance to our local practices, especially since formatting of "how to cite" will vary between sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  In the Sources section, if some items don't have an author parameter, how do we sort items alphabetically by author? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  Pick an alphabetization approach and stick with it. You could choose to alphabetize by title or by publisher, inline with the works with named authors or at the end - it doesn't really matter which as long as it's consistent and clear. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  Femke, any thoughts on what convention we should use? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'd like to investigate how medical FAs with similar sources do this. Not sorting by author is a bit confusing.. It's not unheard of to use institutional author and publisher both even if they're the same, for instance in APA Style. Femke (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  I found an example of this in Major depressive disorder (the NiCE citation), but that article is being revamped. I looked at a few other articles, but most seem to have easy human authors.

  If we have to change this, we could sort by author, and if absent, publisher, so that the sorting stays the same. Femke (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: When author and publisher are the same, e.g. for the WHO citations, would it be acceptable to fill in the author parameter and leave publisher empty instead of vice-versa? That way every citation will begin with an author name and sorting will look natural. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, if they can be considered corporate authors. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you use wikilinks in citations on first appearance, every time, or not at all

Do you expect consistency in linking authors, publishers, or both? The first two of these options, if applied to authors and/or publishers, would mean having a lot of redlinks in the References section. Looking at recent TFAs, Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji links some author names but not others. Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 links some publisher names but not others. Is there a MOS page that calls for consistency in using wikilinks within citations? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need to include redlinks. There is some guidance on what to link in the template documentation for the citation templates, but my query is more tuned to the "consistent citation style" requirement of WP:WIAFA. At the moment we have cases where a particular entity is wikilinked sometimes and other times not, with no clear reasoning behind those decisions. (If there is such reasoning that I'm missing, please share!). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I see. I went through the Sources section and delinked IPCC and UNFCCC, which were linked for no apparent reason. I think that was all of them but would appreciate a fresh set of eyes if anyone still has one. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually I missed a bunch. Going through things more systematically now. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

All publishers are now linked Femke (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when you include publication location

Would anyone object if I remove all publication locations? Or do we need to include a location for every citation? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

It is an optional parameter, so if you would prefer to exclude that is not a problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Great. Quick check with Femkemilene - would you object to me removing all of them? I don't have a preference. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to remove them. I tried to give them if the source gave them, but omitting all seems less prone to errors. Femke (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Done Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN31: SDG Tracker appears to be the work name rather than part of the title

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN33: the Science Hub is the work, the Commission is the publisher. Check throughout for more issues of this kind.

  Done specific example. I don't quite understand how this works. For this IEA source, would the work be "SDG7: Data and Projections"? and the title "Access to electricity"? Femke (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Correct. In that particular case, "Access to electricity" is essentially a chapter of SDG7: Data and Projections. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  I think I've got everything now. Femke (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN36 is missing authors

  Done. Femke (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when/whether you abbreviate organizations versus spelling them out - for example IEA

Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you use {{cite report}} for reports, or whether you just cite them as web sources

We generally used {{cite report}} when the report was a PDF file that was long enough to need page numbers in the citation. When there was a web page that summarized the report and the claim was supported by the web page, we used {{cite web}}. In some cases the report is paywalled so there is benefit to the reader when we point them to the free summary. I'm not sure how we could make these consistent except by converting {{cite web}} templates to {{cite report}}, which would in some cases makes things harder for the reader. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I found one place where we linked to the web summary, but cited the report. I've replaced that link now to point directly to the PDF. Femke (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN204 is broken

  Done. Femke (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN152 is missing retrieval date.

  Done. Femke (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to stop here and oppose simply due to the volume of cleanup needed around citations; once that's been done I'm happy to revisit. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria Thank you for your patience and attention to detail. I've learned a lot about citations in this review. I believe all the issues you raised have been addressed now. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review v2 - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• How are yoru deciding in what cases to include retrieval date? For example FN7 has it and FN173 does not

  I'll take this one tonight. I use a retrieval rate if either the url or the content is at risk of changing. That means a lot of these papers dont need one as the doi is fixed. Some may still need one if we got a separate file that we link to, unequal to doi. Femke (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Removed loads of them. Femke (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Still some stragglers here, eg FN170. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  I did a search for doi= as well as all refs that used a cite report template or cite book template, and removed access dates from them. I need to go to bed but I haven't been able to double-check everything, so I'll check things again tomorrow. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure all refs that have a DOI, are reports that are very unlikely to change, or are books are now access-date free. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN20: don't see "overview" in the title at the source

  @Clayoquot:, could you have a look at the text-source integrity there? The source no longer says 91%. Not sure if we've archived a wrong version there, or if another source was used. Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  I can't remember what happened either. I found a number that's probably newer, from 2019, and updated the sentence and source. Thanks for catching that. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Still some inconsistencies in author/publisher use - eg in FN28 IEA is both, whereas FN42 only publisher

Yikes. I did a search for last= and author= and found and fixed a few more instances of institutional authors in both parameters. I'll check this again later today before marking this issue as done. Femke FYI our convention seems to have evolved such that IEA is used in the publisher parameter for inline references, and in the author parameter in the Sources section.Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Did another search for last= and author= throughout, and publisher= in the Sources section. I believe I got them all. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• U.S. Energy Information Administration or US Energy Information Administration?

  Changed to the official 'U.S. Energy Information Administration'. Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Why is the work wikilinked in FN107 and not FN105? Check throughout

Done. I checked all work= , website= , and publisher= parameters and found a few more. Fixed all. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is work wikilinked in FN85 and not FN7 or FN101? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I went through the journal parameter. I think that's the last alias we've used. Femke (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN174 redirects to the site homepage

  Put a new link in, verified the text again. No archive available yet, but if I understand it correctly, one should automatically become available. Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN185: edition statement should be separate from title. (Don't trust Google Books metadata, it's prone to errors)

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN192: don't see that author at source?

  It's hidden under the "authors and contributions" link. Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, in that case we've got other citations missing authors - eg FN108. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've double checked all IEA web sources and Carbon Brief (they also have the tendency to hide authors). I think FN108 was the only one missing still. Femke (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN199: source?

  Removed. The source was the IPCC report later cited, but quote was unnecessary. Femke (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN231: ILO News is not an author

  Removed. Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Szarka: is that publisher alphabetization per the source?

  I don't understand the question. Femke (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Changed "MacMillan" to "Macmillan". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Smil 2017a: we don't need to identify what the publisher is an imprint of, but if you're doing so, should do so consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Removed (no idea what an imprint is tbf). Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I think v2 issues have all been addressed. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.