This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The main causes for phasing out coal are not because of mountaintop removal mining and mining accidents, it is because it is an environmental and health issue. Most coal in the world is produces by open pits not underground where it is implied that the accidents take place, and not all coal is produced via MTR mining. While MTR mining is controversial and an environmental issue, it is not the reason that countries are phasing out coal, looking at the MTR article itself it only appears to take place in the eastern United states. I have taken out those two sections as the environmental section is the actual reason.-- Kelapstick ( talk) 16:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The see also list includes a number of links that have little to do with coal phaseout, other than that the articles are coal-related. The list should be trimmed to those articles most pertinent to phaseout. Plazak ( talk) 17:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
A balanced analysis would show cost as well as opinion and climate statistics.
If phasing out coal doubles home electricity bills, and increases cost of US manufactured goods by 20% or 30%... All Government studies that should be referenced for an informed decision.
And you look at the economics. You ban coal burning in the US, are they talking about banning coal exports? China is already invested in several American coal companies. And they will burn our coal. It a prisoner's dilemma problem with a very large price tag.
So some referenced discussion on technical and financial challenges of replacing Coal power would be of benefit; even simple links to the wiki CCS page.
The whole argument is as complete as legislation banning dihydrogen monoxide. It's a compelling argument, but is missing a few key facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.126.100 ( talk) 15:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
This tag is over 6 months old. Can anyone state in detail where the additional citations are needed?
Id447 ( talk) 21:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The objectivity of this page is very poor. This is an advocacy piece, not an entry in an encyclopedia. The first section includes a phrase "Coal should be phased out." This is pure opinion.
Beyond that, coal is not being phased out, except in limited degrees, in specific locations. The article attempts to present a progess report on the "coal phase out", but in order to support the opinion, the text is selective, inaccurate, and misleading.
According to some projections, capacity from coal-fired power plants worldwide is expected to grow 35% in the next 10 years. [1] Independently, the US projects that global coal use could grow 50% over the next 2 decades. This is the exact opposite of a "phase out".
Yet the title of the first subsection is "Legislation and initiatives to phase out coal". The headline suggests a trend that is exactly counter to the reality. And, The headline seems to be **willfully misleading** - the first paragraph under that heading describes an agreement to phase out *subbsidies* of coal, but the agreement says absolutely nothing about phasing out *the use of coal* as the headline reads.
When I arrived at this article, in the section on China it read "China is not planning a phase out of coal." But this is ridiculous. As a statement it is true, and also completely misleading. China is *investing heavily* in expanding its use of coal as a fuel for energy production. One stat had China adding 2GW of coal-based power every week. This is not "not planning a phase out". This is heavy, heavy investment in coal. These new plants coming online now will run for 3 or 4 decades, at least! Coal is the primary fuel of the forseeable future, for China. Coal's share of China's domestic energy production is 80%.
Beyond China, the aggregate growth of the use of coal as a fuel for energy in China, Russia, Asia and Africa over the next 5 years will be larger than the entire annual consumption of coal in the US. [2] This is not a phase out, no matter how you spin it. Once again, the exact opposite of a phase out.
The annual report of India's Power Ministry has a plan to grow power by about 80GW as part of their XITH plan, and 79% of that growth will be in fossil-fuel fired power plants, primarily coal. [3]
Coal is cheap, stable, and plentiful. Coal is cheap, stable, and plentiful. Despite the concerns about the dirtiness of the fuel, coal is not going away because people want it to. Writing a wikipedia article that contradicts facts deemed unpleasant, won't change those facts.
If this is an advocacy article, it should clearly state the word "advertisement" or "editorial" at the top of the page. As written, this page has no business being part of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.252.155 ( talk • contribs)
References
This page is essentially only about coal, but fossil fuels are also gas, and more importantly oil. Material should be added for these fuels as well, especially since the phasing out of oil and gas should be more difficult to achieve than for coal. -- FCsector1 ( talk) 09:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
What say you? Id447 ( talk) 19:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Both pages are huge, but both of them put together would be just WAY too much.
Why is that?
-- Id447 ( talk) 04:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there any plausible reason why:
should be in the See also section? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
should be merged User:ar? 99.52.151.221 ( talk) 18:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The link for 'coal phase-out' redirects to this page, but there is a huge difference between coal and other fossil fuels like natural gas.
In fact, this article does not mention a single example of any nation planning to phase out natural gas electricity generation. It's important to recognize that as conventional coal is phased out, the most likely short term replacement is natural gas, and that other systems such as clean(er) coal and nuclear may also replace much of the old coal generation. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/forecasts/aeo/executive_summary.cfm for US example. Natural gas is growing almost as fast as renewables, and is much cheaper. IDK112 ( talk) 04:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Denmark’s Road Map for Fossil Fuel Independence by Katherine Richardson, Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Jørgen Elmeskov, Cathrine Hagem, Jørgen Henningsen, John Korstgård, Niels Buus Kristensen, Poul Erik Morthorst, Jørgen E. Olesen, Mette Wier, Marianne Nielsen, Kenneth Karlsson 64.27.194.74 ( talk) 20:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.195.138.38 ( talk)
See, e.g, Environmental impact of the coal industry
The article should not be silent on the immediate public health advantages to be gained by a decisive move away from fossil fuels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx ( talk • contribs) 00:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
This decline accelerated the first quarter of 2012. Coals share of electricity generation(u.S.) dropped to 36% for the first quarter of 2012, according to Monthly Energy Report, EIA, March 2012. This is a huge decline, after a gradual decline that's been happening for several years now. Whether or not this is permanent remains to be seen. Coal had been used for over 50% of generation at one time. And in 2011 I think it was around 43%. Coal was being replaced largely by natural gas, so it really isn't a fossil fuel phase-out. It's a fossil fuel switch. -- Aflafla1 ( talk) 02:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
This chart is unsourced, and appears to be WP:Original Research by its creator. I've notified the creator of this problem. Unless he can provide sources, the chart should be removed. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 04:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Here's the sort of thing we need to balance the article, since most authorities don't think a fossil-fuel phase-out is practical anytime soon: James Hansen, pullquote:
This isn't an ideal source: it's primary and self published. But Hansen is certainly an authority, and no friend of fossil fuels (esp. coal!). So hopefully someone else will find better RS's we can add, to add the missing POVs to our article. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 05:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Photovoltaic power (GW) [1] | |
---|---|
2005 | 5.4 |
2006 | 7.0 |
2007 | 9.4 |
2008 | 15.7 |
2009 | 22.9 |
2010 | 39.7 |
2011 | 67.4 |
2012 | 100 |
Year end capacities |
Renewable energy certainly has its detractors, but the mainstream perspective on an energy transition towards renewables is presented by authoritative sources, such as the International Energy Agency, which says renewable energy commercialisation has been rapid. The IEA says growth rates are in line with those required for a sustainable energy future: [3]
• "The RE electricity sector, for example, has grown by 17.8% over the last five years (2005-09) and currently provides 19.3% of total power generation in the world."
• "Hydro power is still the major source of renewable electricity (83.8% of RE generation, corresponding to about 16% of total generation in 2009), and the absolute growth in hydro generation over the last five years has been equivalent to that of all the other RE electricity technologies, mainly because of developments in China. Hydro will continue to be an important technology for years to come and must not be excluded from policy considerations."
• "The other newer RE electricity technologies have also grown rapidly, by an impressive 73.6% between 2005 and 2009, a compound average growth rate (CAGR) of 14.8%. Wind has grown most rapidly in absolute terms and has overtaken bioenergy. Solar PV has grown at a growth rate of 50.2% (CAGR), and installed capacity reached about 40 GW by the end of 2010."
• "Progress in RE electricity penetration was focused in the OECD and in Brazil, India and China. The OECD was the only region where the deployment of less mature technologies (such as solar PV, offshore wind) reached a significant scale, with capacities in the order of GWs."
• "Renewable heat grew by 5.9% between 2005 and 2009. Although the use of biomass is still the dominant technology (and includes the use of “traditional” biomass with low efficiency for heating and cooking), growth in solar heating, and to a lesser extent geothermal heating technologies, has been strong, with an overall growth rate of nearly 12% between 2005 and 2009. Growth was particularly driven by rapid increases in solar heating in China."
• "The production and use of biofuels have been growing rapidly, and in 2009 they provided 53.7 Mtoe, equivalent to some 3% of road transport fuels (or 2% of all transport fuels). The biofuels sector has been growing very rapidly (26% CAGR in 2005-09). Biofuels production and consumption are still concentrated in Brazil, the United States and in the European Union. The main centres for ethanol production and consumption are the United States and Brazil, while Europe produces and consumes mainly biodiesel. The remaining markets in other regions and the rest of the world account for only 6% of total production and for 3.3% of consumption. Trade in biofuels plays a limited, yet increasingly important role." [4]
REN21 says: At the national level, at least 30 nations around the world already have renewable energy contributing more than 20% of energy supply. National renewable energy markets are projected to continue to grow strongly in the coming decade and beyond, and some 120 countries have various policy targets for longer-term shares of renewable energy, including a binding 20% by 2020 target for the European Union. Some countries have much higher long-term policy targets of up to 100% renewables. Outside Europe, a diverse group of 20 or more other countries target renewable energy shares in the 2020–2030 time frame that range from 10% to 50%. [5]
The first country to propose 100% renewable energy was Iceland, in 1998. [6] Proposals have been made for Japan in 2003, [7] and for Australia in 2011. [8] Norway and some other countries already obtain all of their electricity from renewable sources. Iceland proposed using hydrogen for transportation and its fishing fleet. Australia proposed biofuel for those elements of transportation not easily converted to electricity. The road map for the United States, [9] [10] commitment by Denmark, [11] and Vision 2050 for Europe set a 2050 timeline for converting to 100% renewable energy, [12] later reduced to 2040 in 2011. [13] Zero Carbon Britain 2030 proposes eliminating carbon emissions in Britain by 2030 by transitioning to renewable energy. [14]
In 2011, the refereed journal Energy Policy published two articles by Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of engineering at Stanford University, and Mark A. Delucchi, about changing our energy supply mix and "Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power". The articles analyze the feasibility of providing worldwide energy for electric power, transportation, and heating/cooling from wind, water, and sunlight (WWS), which are safe clean options. Barriers to implementing the renewable energy plan are seen to be "primarily social and political, not technological or economic". Energy costs with a WWS system should be similar to today's energy costs. [15] In general, Jacobson has said wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 per cent of the world's energy, eliminating all fossil fuels. [16] He advocates a "smart mix" of renewable energy sources to reliably meet electricity demand:
Because the wind blows during stormy conditions when the sun does not shine and the sun often shines on calm days with little wind, combining wind and solar can go a long way toward meeting demand, especially when geothermal provides a steady base and hydroelectric can be called on to fill in the gaps. [17]
-- Johnfos ( talk) 22:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
wws
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).-- Johnfos ( talk) 22:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
For your nameplate-capacities solar chart, you need to add average actual yield, I think. Though solar's usually not too bad, certainly compared to wind. Best, Pete Tillman ( talk) 20:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Peter, Staid institutions like the IEA are not known for their progressive ideas. What I've outlined above is not the optimistic view of renewables, but the mainstream (middle-of-the-road) view. Things are moving so fast with renewables that most people just can't keep up. If you want the optimistic view, please see publications by Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF, and Solartopia by Harvey Wasserman. I would also call the massive Desertec proposal optimistic.
Discussion about capacity factors ("average yield") is interesting and usually leads to considerable debate, even for non-renewables. (For example, the capacity factors of nuclear power in France is actually quite low by world standards.) The charts below come from the Wind power article, and are quite a good way of presenting actual electricity produced, but are obviously too detailed (in their present form) for this article. Please feel free to use any of this in the article. Best, Johnfos ( talk) 23:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
|
|
-- Johnfos ( talk) 23:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
You may be interested in Jeremy Leggett, a geologist who came to embrace renewables... But detractors are often concerned about low capacity factor and variability, sometimes forgetting that hydro, geothermal, and biomass, produced responsibly, are baseload sources. See variable renewable energy for more info...
Delucchi and Jacobson identify seven ways to design and operate variable renewable energy systems so that they will reliably satisfy electricity demand: [3]
- (A) interconnect geographically dispersed, naturally variable energy sources (e.g., wind, solar, wave, tidal), which smoothes out electricity supply (and demand) significantly.
- (B) use complementary and non-variable energy sources (such as hydroelectric power) to fill temporary gaps between demand and wind or solar generation.
- (C) use “smart” demand-response management to shift flexible loads to a time when more renewable energy is available.
- (D) store electric power, at the site of generation, (in batteries, hydrogen gas, molten salts, compressed air, pumped hydroelectric power, and flywheels), for later use.
- (E) over-size renewable peak generation capacity to minimize the times when available renewable power is less than demand and to provide spare power to produce hydrogen for flexible transportation and heat uses.
- (F) store electric power in electric-vehicle batteries, known as "vehicle to grid" or V2G.
- (G) forecast the weather (winds, sunlight, waves, tides and precipitation) to better plan for energy supply needs. [3]
Renewable energy is naturally replenished and renewable power technologies increase energy security because they reduce dependence on foreign sources of fuel. Unlike power stations relying on uranium and recycled plutonium for fuel, they are not subject to the volatility of global fuel markets. [4] Renewable power decentralises electricity supply and so minimises the need to produce, transport and store hazardous fuels; reliability of power generation is improved by producing power close to the energy consumer. An accidental or intentional outage affects a smaller amount of capacity than an outage at a larger power station. [4]
Thanks and I'm going to take a break from this thread now, Johnfos ( talk) 23:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Re [1] and [2] why put biofuels, which use land, hike food prices, and take huge amounts of agricultural fuel, fertilizer, and pesticide petrochemicals, ahead of actual cutting-edge [3], [4], [5], etc. projects? It doesn't make sense. 168.103.212.63 ( talk) 22:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
207.224.44.181 ( talk) 03:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
These sections list three individuals presumed notable by virtue of their wiki articles. However the sections also include three individuals without established notability or prominence: a university law professor and two EPA lawyers. Is there any point (or room) in this article to list everyone in favor of a phase-out or moratorium? Where do we draw the line? Plazak ( talk) 21:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
This article mentions nuclear power only a few times and always negatively, as if uranium was a fossil fuel. The main theme of the article is that it is certain that coal will be replaced only by renewable sources, and nuclear power will not be used. This is an NPOV violation bordering on propaganda. -- Tweenk ( talk) 22:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The lead paragraph in the section "Problems of fossil fuels" ties 1.5 million deaths each year mostly to using dung and wood as fuel. Neither of these are fossil fuels. This paragraph would be more appropriately titled "Problems of biofuels." I believe that this paragraph should be replaced with one more in line with the topic. Plazak ( talk) 13:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Electric aircraft that fly at 900km/h do not exist. This page is ridiculous. 58.178.107.100 ( talk) 03:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
"Move toward renewable energy" is a very politically charged statement, and hardly what many counties are implementing. Prior to the Tohoku earthquake, Japan was moving to once again remove coal use through nuclear power, which is more compatible with coal based burners than ridiculous options like wind and solar. In fact, Japan had reduced coal to nearly zero in the early 1990s as a result of the nuclear push, without any input from wind, solar, or bio-fuels.
As others have state, the objectivity of this article is questionable at best, a GreenPeace violation of the article editing guidelines at worst.
Basroil ( talk) 17:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Basroil, the definition given at Alternative energy is "is any energy source that is an alternative to fossil fuel" the definition given at Renewable energy is "energy that comes from resources which are naturally replenished on a human timescale". Although geothermal, uranium and thorium are not being renewed they all offer potential to emit billions of tons less crap into the atmosphere than the current cheap & dirty use of coal. Is this "green enough", not for most people, but the green revolution is not happening, 1.3% globally in 2013. Are there "unsustainable" alternatives to our continuing use of fossil fuels, you bet. Dougmcdonell ( talk) 23:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Fossil-fuel phase-out. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Fossil-fuel phase-out. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I personally disagree with the factual accuracy of many of the claims in this section. Carbon neutral fuels in theory are great but in practice, impossible. Synthetic fuels first of all are often created using coal, see coal to liquids and synthetic fuel. This section needs a complete rewrite or deletion in my opinion. Brian Everlasting ( talk) 16:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I have found this tagged section of the article to be rather muddled and confusing and yet it appears in many places on WP. I agree with Brian's opening statement above that the "section needs a complete rewrite or deletion". After many months, a rewrite has not been forthcoming, so I am now deleting. Johnfos ( talk) 07:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Today (Nov 2016) a drive by IP restored this text, and I subsequently restored this archived talk thread, then removed the text again. Please discuss more instead of slo mo rereverting battles. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. While compound modifiers usually require a hyphen, there is a case being made here that in this case the trend is towards using a space instead. There is no clear consensus at this time that these pages should be moved, or even where they should be moved to. ( non-admin closure) Bradv 00:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
– Is it correct to write "fossil-fuel use", "fossil-fuel industry" and fossil-fuel power station? If so, should we also write "fossil-fuel phase-out", etc. Kalimera Pouliths ( talk) 15:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)--Relisting. — AjaxSmack 03:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=
, |separator=
, |trans_title=
, |trans_chapter=
, |laysummary=
, |chapterurl=
, |month=
, and |lastauthoramp=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=
, |separator=
, |trans_title=
, |trans_chapter=
, |chapterurl=
, |month=
, |laysummary=
, and |lastauthoramp=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=
, |separator=
, |trans_title=
, |trans_chapter=
, |month=
, |laysummary=
, |chapterurl=
, and |lastauthoramp=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=
, |separator=
, |trans_title=
, |trans_chapter=
, |chapterurl=
, |month=
, |laysummary=
, and |lastauthoramp=
(
help)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 26 external links on Fossil fuel phase-out. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=e08c8e19-4a95-491c-9386-d30afeab5cdf&sponsor={{
dead link}}
tag to
http://aceee.org/store/proddetail.cfm?CFID=2957330&CFTOKEN=50269931&ItemID=432&CategoryID=7When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Fossil fuel phase-out. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
This article is about the "Fossil fuel phase-out". How come that it contains a whole section about a switch to natural gas, which is also a fossil fuel? This section is misplaced, as it is the opposite of the phase-out the article is about. A switch from one fossil fuel to another has nothing to do with a phase-out. Therefore this section should be deleted. Andol ( talk) 23:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I was thinking of potentially adding to or creating a new article on fossil fuel regulation under the Trump administration. I have compiled some sources and was hoping for some feedback if anyone has an opinion on them. Thanks in advance [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
https://www.brookings.edu/podcast-episode/energy-and-climate-policy-under-the-trump-administration/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2016/12/26/trumps-energy-policy-10-big-changes/#16d1b8b818aa
https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy
http://fortune.com/2016/11/14/donald-trump-victory-us-shale-oil/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/us/politics/republicans-oil-gas-regulations.html?mabReward=R4&recp=0&moduleDetail=recommendations-0&action=click&contentCollection=U.S.®ion=Footer&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&src=recg&pgtype=article [6] [7] [8] Hmthorner ( talk) 19:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians! I'm thinking in complementing the content of this article considering the following articles:
Any feedback is welcome!
-- Isolari ( talk) 20:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
This article has a lot of information that is not related to it, and that currently there are articles dedicated to said information. I suggest the removal (or move) of the exceeding detail about renewable energy, and just leave the first two paragraphs of the section "Alternative Energy Sources". The same happens with all the detail of coal: there is already a Wikipedia article on Coal that is wikilinked in the same paragraph. Also, I suggest to review the claims of phase-out (countries and opinions), to see if they were realized or the situation has changed. Isolari ( talk) 20:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Fossil fuel phase-out. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.fleksenergi.dk/Files/Billeder/FleksEnergi%20pr%C3%A6sentationer/blarke-17april-intro.pdfWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Fossil fuel phase-out. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/power-planning/long-term-energy-plan-2013When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Suggest to delete the two (outdated) paragraphs about large solar farms (or move somewehre else), together with the following paragraph. Meerwind7 ( talk) 11:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The main causes for phasing out coal are not because of mountaintop removal mining and mining accidents, it is because it is an environmental and health issue. Most coal in the world is produces by open pits not underground where it is implied that the accidents take place, and not all coal is produced via MTR mining. While MTR mining is controversial and an environmental issue, it is not the reason that countries are phasing out coal, looking at the MTR article itself it only appears to take place in the eastern United states. I have taken out those two sections as the environmental section is the actual reason.-- Kelapstick ( talk) 16:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The see also list includes a number of links that have little to do with coal phaseout, other than that the articles are coal-related. The list should be trimmed to those articles most pertinent to phaseout. Plazak ( talk) 17:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
A balanced analysis would show cost as well as opinion and climate statistics.
If phasing out coal doubles home electricity bills, and increases cost of US manufactured goods by 20% or 30%... All Government studies that should be referenced for an informed decision.
And you look at the economics. You ban coal burning in the US, are they talking about banning coal exports? China is already invested in several American coal companies. And they will burn our coal. It a prisoner's dilemma problem with a very large price tag.
So some referenced discussion on technical and financial challenges of replacing Coal power would be of benefit; even simple links to the wiki CCS page.
The whole argument is as complete as legislation banning dihydrogen monoxide. It's a compelling argument, but is missing a few key facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.126.100 ( talk) 15:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
This tag is over 6 months old. Can anyone state in detail where the additional citations are needed?
Id447 ( talk) 21:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The objectivity of this page is very poor. This is an advocacy piece, not an entry in an encyclopedia. The first section includes a phrase "Coal should be phased out." This is pure opinion.
Beyond that, coal is not being phased out, except in limited degrees, in specific locations. The article attempts to present a progess report on the "coal phase out", but in order to support the opinion, the text is selective, inaccurate, and misleading.
According to some projections, capacity from coal-fired power plants worldwide is expected to grow 35% in the next 10 years. [1] Independently, the US projects that global coal use could grow 50% over the next 2 decades. This is the exact opposite of a "phase out".
Yet the title of the first subsection is "Legislation and initiatives to phase out coal". The headline suggests a trend that is exactly counter to the reality. And, The headline seems to be **willfully misleading** - the first paragraph under that heading describes an agreement to phase out *subbsidies* of coal, but the agreement says absolutely nothing about phasing out *the use of coal* as the headline reads.
When I arrived at this article, in the section on China it read "China is not planning a phase out of coal." But this is ridiculous. As a statement it is true, and also completely misleading. China is *investing heavily* in expanding its use of coal as a fuel for energy production. One stat had China adding 2GW of coal-based power every week. This is not "not planning a phase out". This is heavy, heavy investment in coal. These new plants coming online now will run for 3 or 4 decades, at least! Coal is the primary fuel of the forseeable future, for China. Coal's share of China's domestic energy production is 80%.
Beyond China, the aggregate growth of the use of coal as a fuel for energy in China, Russia, Asia and Africa over the next 5 years will be larger than the entire annual consumption of coal in the US. [2] This is not a phase out, no matter how you spin it. Once again, the exact opposite of a phase out.
The annual report of India's Power Ministry has a plan to grow power by about 80GW as part of their XITH plan, and 79% of that growth will be in fossil-fuel fired power plants, primarily coal. [3]
Coal is cheap, stable, and plentiful. Coal is cheap, stable, and plentiful. Despite the concerns about the dirtiness of the fuel, coal is not going away because people want it to. Writing a wikipedia article that contradicts facts deemed unpleasant, won't change those facts.
If this is an advocacy article, it should clearly state the word "advertisement" or "editorial" at the top of the page. As written, this page has no business being part of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.252.155 ( talk • contribs)
References
This page is essentially only about coal, but fossil fuels are also gas, and more importantly oil. Material should be added for these fuels as well, especially since the phasing out of oil and gas should be more difficult to achieve than for coal. -- FCsector1 ( talk) 09:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
What say you? Id447 ( talk) 19:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Both pages are huge, but both of them put together would be just WAY too much.
Why is that?
-- Id447 ( talk) 04:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there any plausible reason why:
should be in the See also section? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
should be merged User:ar? 99.52.151.221 ( talk) 18:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The link for 'coal phase-out' redirects to this page, but there is a huge difference between coal and other fossil fuels like natural gas.
In fact, this article does not mention a single example of any nation planning to phase out natural gas electricity generation. It's important to recognize that as conventional coal is phased out, the most likely short term replacement is natural gas, and that other systems such as clean(er) coal and nuclear may also replace much of the old coal generation. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/forecasts/aeo/executive_summary.cfm for US example. Natural gas is growing almost as fast as renewables, and is much cheaper. IDK112 ( talk) 04:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Denmark’s Road Map for Fossil Fuel Independence by Katherine Richardson, Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Jørgen Elmeskov, Cathrine Hagem, Jørgen Henningsen, John Korstgård, Niels Buus Kristensen, Poul Erik Morthorst, Jørgen E. Olesen, Mette Wier, Marianne Nielsen, Kenneth Karlsson 64.27.194.74 ( talk) 20:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.195.138.38 ( talk)
See, e.g, Environmental impact of the coal industry
The article should not be silent on the immediate public health advantages to be gained by a decisive move away from fossil fuels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx ( talk • contribs) 00:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
This decline accelerated the first quarter of 2012. Coals share of electricity generation(u.S.) dropped to 36% for the first quarter of 2012, according to Monthly Energy Report, EIA, March 2012. This is a huge decline, after a gradual decline that's been happening for several years now. Whether or not this is permanent remains to be seen. Coal had been used for over 50% of generation at one time. And in 2011 I think it was around 43%. Coal was being replaced largely by natural gas, so it really isn't a fossil fuel phase-out. It's a fossil fuel switch. -- Aflafla1 ( talk) 02:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
This chart is unsourced, and appears to be WP:Original Research by its creator. I've notified the creator of this problem. Unless he can provide sources, the chart should be removed. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 04:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Here's the sort of thing we need to balance the article, since most authorities don't think a fossil-fuel phase-out is practical anytime soon: James Hansen, pullquote:
This isn't an ideal source: it's primary and self published. But Hansen is certainly an authority, and no friend of fossil fuels (esp. coal!). So hopefully someone else will find better RS's we can add, to add the missing POVs to our article. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 05:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Photovoltaic power (GW) [1] | |
---|---|
2005 | 5.4 |
2006 | 7.0 |
2007 | 9.4 |
2008 | 15.7 |
2009 | 22.9 |
2010 | 39.7 |
2011 | 67.4 |
2012 | 100 |
Year end capacities |
Renewable energy certainly has its detractors, but the mainstream perspective on an energy transition towards renewables is presented by authoritative sources, such as the International Energy Agency, which says renewable energy commercialisation has been rapid. The IEA says growth rates are in line with those required for a sustainable energy future: [3]
• "The RE electricity sector, for example, has grown by 17.8% over the last five years (2005-09) and currently provides 19.3% of total power generation in the world."
• "Hydro power is still the major source of renewable electricity (83.8% of RE generation, corresponding to about 16% of total generation in 2009), and the absolute growth in hydro generation over the last five years has been equivalent to that of all the other RE electricity technologies, mainly because of developments in China. Hydro will continue to be an important technology for years to come and must not be excluded from policy considerations."
• "The other newer RE electricity technologies have also grown rapidly, by an impressive 73.6% between 2005 and 2009, a compound average growth rate (CAGR) of 14.8%. Wind has grown most rapidly in absolute terms and has overtaken bioenergy. Solar PV has grown at a growth rate of 50.2% (CAGR), and installed capacity reached about 40 GW by the end of 2010."
• "Progress in RE electricity penetration was focused in the OECD and in Brazil, India and China. The OECD was the only region where the deployment of less mature technologies (such as solar PV, offshore wind) reached a significant scale, with capacities in the order of GWs."
• "Renewable heat grew by 5.9% between 2005 and 2009. Although the use of biomass is still the dominant technology (and includes the use of “traditional” biomass with low efficiency for heating and cooking), growth in solar heating, and to a lesser extent geothermal heating technologies, has been strong, with an overall growth rate of nearly 12% between 2005 and 2009. Growth was particularly driven by rapid increases in solar heating in China."
• "The production and use of biofuels have been growing rapidly, and in 2009 they provided 53.7 Mtoe, equivalent to some 3% of road transport fuels (or 2% of all transport fuels). The biofuels sector has been growing very rapidly (26% CAGR in 2005-09). Biofuels production and consumption are still concentrated in Brazil, the United States and in the European Union. The main centres for ethanol production and consumption are the United States and Brazil, while Europe produces and consumes mainly biodiesel. The remaining markets in other regions and the rest of the world account for only 6% of total production and for 3.3% of consumption. Trade in biofuels plays a limited, yet increasingly important role." [4]
REN21 says: At the national level, at least 30 nations around the world already have renewable energy contributing more than 20% of energy supply. National renewable energy markets are projected to continue to grow strongly in the coming decade and beyond, and some 120 countries have various policy targets for longer-term shares of renewable energy, including a binding 20% by 2020 target for the European Union. Some countries have much higher long-term policy targets of up to 100% renewables. Outside Europe, a diverse group of 20 or more other countries target renewable energy shares in the 2020–2030 time frame that range from 10% to 50%. [5]
The first country to propose 100% renewable energy was Iceland, in 1998. [6] Proposals have been made for Japan in 2003, [7] and for Australia in 2011. [8] Norway and some other countries already obtain all of their electricity from renewable sources. Iceland proposed using hydrogen for transportation and its fishing fleet. Australia proposed biofuel for those elements of transportation not easily converted to electricity. The road map for the United States, [9] [10] commitment by Denmark, [11] and Vision 2050 for Europe set a 2050 timeline for converting to 100% renewable energy, [12] later reduced to 2040 in 2011. [13] Zero Carbon Britain 2030 proposes eliminating carbon emissions in Britain by 2030 by transitioning to renewable energy. [14]
In 2011, the refereed journal Energy Policy published two articles by Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of engineering at Stanford University, and Mark A. Delucchi, about changing our energy supply mix and "Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power". The articles analyze the feasibility of providing worldwide energy for electric power, transportation, and heating/cooling from wind, water, and sunlight (WWS), which are safe clean options. Barriers to implementing the renewable energy plan are seen to be "primarily social and political, not technological or economic". Energy costs with a WWS system should be similar to today's energy costs. [15] In general, Jacobson has said wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 per cent of the world's energy, eliminating all fossil fuels. [16] He advocates a "smart mix" of renewable energy sources to reliably meet electricity demand:
Because the wind blows during stormy conditions when the sun does not shine and the sun often shines on calm days with little wind, combining wind and solar can go a long way toward meeting demand, especially when geothermal provides a steady base and hydroelectric can be called on to fill in the gaps. [17]
-- Johnfos ( talk) 22:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
wws
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).-- Johnfos ( talk) 22:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
For your nameplate-capacities solar chart, you need to add average actual yield, I think. Though solar's usually not too bad, certainly compared to wind. Best, Pete Tillman ( talk) 20:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Peter, Staid institutions like the IEA are not known for their progressive ideas. What I've outlined above is not the optimistic view of renewables, but the mainstream (middle-of-the-road) view. Things are moving so fast with renewables that most people just can't keep up. If you want the optimistic view, please see publications by Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF, and Solartopia by Harvey Wasserman. I would also call the massive Desertec proposal optimistic.
Discussion about capacity factors ("average yield") is interesting and usually leads to considerable debate, even for non-renewables. (For example, the capacity factors of nuclear power in France is actually quite low by world standards.) The charts below come from the Wind power article, and are quite a good way of presenting actual electricity produced, but are obviously too detailed (in their present form) for this article. Please feel free to use any of this in the article. Best, Johnfos ( talk) 23:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
|
|
-- Johnfos ( talk) 23:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
You may be interested in Jeremy Leggett, a geologist who came to embrace renewables... But detractors are often concerned about low capacity factor and variability, sometimes forgetting that hydro, geothermal, and biomass, produced responsibly, are baseload sources. See variable renewable energy for more info...
Delucchi and Jacobson identify seven ways to design and operate variable renewable energy systems so that they will reliably satisfy electricity demand: [3]
- (A) interconnect geographically dispersed, naturally variable energy sources (e.g., wind, solar, wave, tidal), which smoothes out electricity supply (and demand) significantly.
- (B) use complementary and non-variable energy sources (such as hydroelectric power) to fill temporary gaps between demand and wind or solar generation.
- (C) use “smart” demand-response management to shift flexible loads to a time when more renewable energy is available.
- (D) store electric power, at the site of generation, (in batteries, hydrogen gas, molten salts, compressed air, pumped hydroelectric power, and flywheels), for later use.
- (E) over-size renewable peak generation capacity to minimize the times when available renewable power is less than demand and to provide spare power to produce hydrogen for flexible transportation and heat uses.
- (F) store electric power in electric-vehicle batteries, known as "vehicle to grid" or V2G.
- (G) forecast the weather (winds, sunlight, waves, tides and precipitation) to better plan for energy supply needs. [3]
Renewable energy is naturally replenished and renewable power technologies increase energy security because they reduce dependence on foreign sources of fuel. Unlike power stations relying on uranium and recycled plutonium for fuel, they are not subject to the volatility of global fuel markets. [4] Renewable power decentralises electricity supply and so minimises the need to produce, transport and store hazardous fuels; reliability of power generation is improved by producing power close to the energy consumer. An accidental or intentional outage affects a smaller amount of capacity than an outage at a larger power station. [4]
Thanks and I'm going to take a break from this thread now, Johnfos ( talk) 23:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Re [1] and [2] why put biofuels, which use land, hike food prices, and take huge amounts of agricultural fuel, fertilizer, and pesticide petrochemicals, ahead of actual cutting-edge [3], [4], [5], etc. projects? It doesn't make sense. 168.103.212.63 ( talk) 22:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
207.224.44.181 ( talk) 03:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
These sections list three individuals presumed notable by virtue of their wiki articles. However the sections also include three individuals without established notability or prominence: a university law professor and two EPA lawyers. Is there any point (or room) in this article to list everyone in favor of a phase-out or moratorium? Where do we draw the line? Plazak ( talk) 21:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
This article mentions nuclear power only a few times and always negatively, as if uranium was a fossil fuel. The main theme of the article is that it is certain that coal will be replaced only by renewable sources, and nuclear power will not be used. This is an NPOV violation bordering on propaganda. -- Tweenk ( talk) 22:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The lead paragraph in the section "Problems of fossil fuels" ties 1.5 million deaths each year mostly to using dung and wood as fuel. Neither of these are fossil fuels. This paragraph would be more appropriately titled "Problems of biofuels." I believe that this paragraph should be replaced with one more in line with the topic. Plazak ( talk) 13:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Electric aircraft that fly at 900km/h do not exist. This page is ridiculous. 58.178.107.100 ( talk) 03:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
"Move toward renewable energy" is a very politically charged statement, and hardly what many counties are implementing. Prior to the Tohoku earthquake, Japan was moving to once again remove coal use through nuclear power, which is more compatible with coal based burners than ridiculous options like wind and solar. In fact, Japan had reduced coal to nearly zero in the early 1990s as a result of the nuclear push, without any input from wind, solar, or bio-fuels.
As others have state, the objectivity of this article is questionable at best, a GreenPeace violation of the article editing guidelines at worst.
Basroil ( talk) 17:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Basroil, the definition given at Alternative energy is "is any energy source that is an alternative to fossil fuel" the definition given at Renewable energy is "energy that comes from resources which are naturally replenished on a human timescale". Although geothermal, uranium and thorium are not being renewed they all offer potential to emit billions of tons less crap into the atmosphere than the current cheap & dirty use of coal. Is this "green enough", not for most people, but the green revolution is not happening, 1.3% globally in 2013. Are there "unsustainable" alternatives to our continuing use of fossil fuels, you bet. Dougmcdonell ( talk) 23:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Fossil-fuel phase-out. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Fossil-fuel phase-out. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I personally disagree with the factual accuracy of many of the claims in this section. Carbon neutral fuels in theory are great but in practice, impossible. Synthetic fuels first of all are often created using coal, see coal to liquids and synthetic fuel. This section needs a complete rewrite or deletion in my opinion. Brian Everlasting ( talk) 16:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I have found this tagged section of the article to be rather muddled and confusing and yet it appears in many places on WP. I agree with Brian's opening statement above that the "section needs a complete rewrite or deletion". After many months, a rewrite has not been forthcoming, so I am now deleting. Johnfos ( talk) 07:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Today (Nov 2016) a drive by IP restored this text, and I subsequently restored this archived talk thread, then removed the text again. Please discuss more instead of slo mo rereverting battles. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. While compound modifiers usually require a hyphen, there is a case being made here that in this case the trend is towards using a space instead. There is no clear consensus at this time that these pages should be moved, or even where they should be moved to. ( non-admin closure) Bradv 00:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
– Is it correct to write "fossil-fuel use", "fossil-fuel industry" and fossil-fuel power station? If so, should we also write "fossil-fuel phase-out", etc. Kalimera Pouliths ( talk) 15:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)--Relisting. — AjaxSmack 03:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=
, |separator=
, |trans_title=
, |trans_chapter=
, |laysummary=
, |chapterurl=
, |month=
, and |lastauthoramp=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=
, |separator=
, |trans_title=
, |trans_chapter=
, |chapterurl=
, |month=
, |laysummary=
, and |lastauthoramp=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=
, |separator=
, |trans_title=
, |trans_chapter=
, |month=
, |laysummary=
, |chapterurl=
, and |lastauthoramp=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=
, |separator=
, |trans_title=
, |trans_chapter=
, |chapterurl=
, |month=
, |laysummary=
, and |lastauthoramp=
(
help)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 26 external links on Fossil fuel phase-out. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=e08c8e19-4a95-491c-9386-d30afeab5cdf&sponsor={{
dead link}}
tag to
http://aceee.org/store/proddetail.cfm?CFID=2957330&CFTOKEN=50269931&ItemID=432&CategoryID=7When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Fossil fuel phase-out. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
This article is about the "Fossil fuel phase-out". How come that it contains a whole section about a switch to natural gas, which is also a fossil fuel? This section is misplaced, as it is the opposite of the phase-out the article is about. A switch from one fossil fuel to another has nothing to do with a phase-out. Therefore this section should be deleted. Andol ( talk) 23:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I was thinking of potentially adding to or creating a new article on fossil fuel regulation under the Trump administration. I have compiled some sources and was hoping for some feedback if anyone has an opinion on them. Thanks in advance [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
https://www.brookings.edu/podcast-episode/energy-and-climate-policy-under-the-trump-administration/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2016/12/26/trumps-energy-policy-10-big-changes/#16d1b8b818aa
https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy
http://fortune.com/2016/11/14/donald-trump-victory-us-shale-oil/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/us/politics/republicans-oil-gas-regulations.html?mabReward=R4&recp=0&moduleDetail=recommendations-0&action=click&contentCollection=U.S.®ion=Footer&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&src=recg&pgtype=article [6] [7] [8] Hmthorner ( talk) 19:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians! I'm thinking in complementing the content of this article considering the following articles:
Any feedback is welcome!
-- Isolari ( talk) 20:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
This article has a lot of information that is not related to it, and that currently there are articles dedicated to said information. I suggest the removal (or move) of the exceeding detail about renewable energy, and just leave the first two paragraphs of the section "Alternative Energy Sources". The same happens with all the detail of coal: there is already a Wikipedia article on Coal that is wikilinked in the same paragraph. Also, I suggest to review the claims of phase-out (countries and opinions), to see if they were realized or the situation has changed. Isolari ( talk) 20:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Fossil fuel phase-out. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.fleksenergi.dk/Files/Billeder/FleksEnergi%20pr%C3%A6sentationer/blarke-17april-intro.pdfWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Fossil fuel phase-out. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/power-planning/long-term-energy-plan-2013When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Suggest to delete the two (outdated) paragraphs about large solar farms (or move somewehre else), together with the following paragraph. Meerwind7 ( talk) 11:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)