![]() | 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 |
Interesting article. There were some clear problems and slight naivity with the biogas section which I have expanded. A waste-to-energy plant in this contect is an incinerator. It still produces CO2 through the combustion of the biological material. In addition to this it combusts plastic (originating from fossil fuels). Recent EU reports (Working Group on Waste Prevention and Recycling ENV/EPOC/WGWPR(2005)4/FINAL 02.02.07) have highlighted an incineration facility has a similar carbon footprint to leaving biological waste to degrade in landfill, once the overall carbon costs of construction have been taken into consideration.
The facility on Lerwick is better than most on some counts as it recovers heat for a district heating scheme, off setting other energy costs, however the bigger picture must be considered. Alex 15:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations to Ben and others on the high quality of this article. However, I've never seen Carbon sequestration, "Clean coal" technology, and Nuclear fusion discussed in a renewables article before. They just don't seem to fit in and I believe that this discussion should be removed. Including material which is outside the scope of the title is not a neutral thing to do. -- Johnfos 01:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I find myself agreeing with most of what you've said above, and think the inclusion of the "Non-renewables" heading will help readers quite a bit. Nuclear fusion is one point where we probably have different views, and I will try to collect my thoughts and write something here tomorrow on that. Otherwise, I may just try to improve the wording a little in a few places, for clarification. Would like to offer every support in your bid for FA status. -- Johnfos 10:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested why 'peat as renewable' is mentioned with surprise above and not at all in the live page ? With a view to not-that-distant history, I would certainly have thought it deserved a mention : The Highlands & Islands were largely peat-powered until a century ago ! I would regard it as notable that an experimental peat-fired power-station used to exist in Caithness circa 1970 ! I remember the old building being pointed out to me, but can't remember exactly where. I understand it was never very successful, due to being a 'dirty' fuel - soot & tar built up in or around the boiler tubes. I don't know where one would find info - does Dounreay still have a visitor centre ? Thurso Library ? Best of luck to the Irish : are they farming peat intensively ? I think Caithness & Sutherland's peat bogs are very much Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Peat#In_Finland has interesting mentions of commercial exploitation. I think other forms of Biomass are regarded as renewable : the distinction between renewables and fossil fuel is just the rate of renewal - maybe one has to draw the line if the Energy crop takes more than a year to re-grow ? 195.137.93.171 22:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I am interested to hear about the peat-fired power-station in Caithness. However, although I believe there is a good case for encouraging the traditional small-scale use of peat, the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories do not classify peat as biofuel and treat it as fossil carbon. See International Mire Conservation Group. I therefore can't think of a reason to include it in the article except to say that it isn't renewable (except, apparently, in Ireland). Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
A little Googling pin-pointed the peat-fired power-station in Caithness to Braehour Farm, 1 mile south of Scotscalder Station. It was set up in 1954 by the Scottish Hydro-Electric Board and closed in 1960, but immortalised in poetry ! Peats- But No Power! -- 195.137.93.171 01:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It's clear that a lot of good work has gone into this article, but there are two related problems. Firstly, the article talks too much about non-renewables such as carbon sequestration, clean coal, and nuclear power. These are clearly off the topic of the article. Secondly, the article is not comprehensive in its discussion of renewables. There is just so much more that could be said about the actual deployment of technologies such as hydroelectricity and wind power in particular. I couldn't find the answer to basic questions such as: What are the ten largest hydro installations in Scotland, in terms of installed capacity? What are the ten largest wind farms in Scotland?
In terms of other renewable energy articles which are GAs, Renewable energy in Iceland, Renewable energy commercialization and Renewable energy commercialization in Australia, there are none which discuss carbon sequestration, clean coal, and nuclear power. And the world's single most authoritative source on the matter, the International Energy Agency, does not classify these as renewable. [1] [2] There is a skewed emphasis in this article, and so much that could be said about what is happening with renewables in Scotland just isn't being said.
I can't believe that there is only one paragraph on hydro. The carbon sequestration section is longer than the hydro section. How can this possibly make sense? -- Johnfos 08:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks, MacDui, for those changes. The issue is resolved now as far as I am concerned and I hope you get FA... In terms of where I am coming from, I simply wanted to make sure that basic information should be included and more speculative info not given undue weight. And thanks for mentioning Samye Ling. regards, Johnfos 04:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The citations are incomplete on this article; pls see WP:WIAFA regarding consistent formatting of footnotes, and examples here. All sources need a publisher, websources need a last accessdate, and sources need a date and author where given.
Also, there should not be an imbedded link in References (Scottish Renewables Forum. Market and Planning Report (various).[12] Pls repair;
I'll check back in at a later date, but would not want to have to make these repairs myself before any possible main page appearance. Also, per WP:LAYOUT, portals belong in See also; I moved them.
Pls see WP:MOS#Quotations; "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more is named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote."
I'm sorry no one seems to have reviewed for MOS issues at FAC, but these things should be attended to quickly so a cleanup tag isn't needed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
"Whisky distilleries have a role to play in keeping Scots warm." Am I really the only one that noticed the humor in that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.144.239 ( talk) 20:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I hope not! Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
My preference would be to remove at least most of the citations and use the lead as a summary of what is in the article, and as such have the citations appear later in the article where each topic is addressed. 199.125.109.77 07:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The first line "The production of renewable energy in Scotland is an issue that has come to the fore [my italics] in technical, economic and political terms during the opening years of the 21st century" seems problematic as an introduction to the whole topic. It implies that renewable energy in Scotland did not receive high levels of attention (in technical, economic and political terms) in the 20th century - that is to say that it was in the background. The history of HEP alone would make me doubt this. Greenshed 09:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The issue was not 'to the fore' for most of the twentieth century. A conference on the subject in the early eighties lamented the fact that the government spent more on military brass bands than on research into renewables - and this in the aftermath of the oil crisis of the seventies. Ten years later wind turbine proposals were regarded as eccentric. The mid to late nineties was the beginning of serious investment (outside of hydro, which was a fairly brief and localised phenomenon from a construction perspective). Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a fascinating and impressive article, but how does it fit into the Wikipedia project? Does Ben MacDui envisage a series of articles on Renewable energy in England, Renewable energy in Russia, Renewable energy in Thailand &c? If not, are the title and focus right? Deipnosophista 11:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the one remaining area, of those recently mentioned, where some further discussion here may be helpful.
The comment regarding fusion power, that "commercial applications are still twenty years or more away[82]", surprised me as it is the most optimistic assessment I've ever seen, and the reference cited didn't seem to mention this.
This is what the Fusion power article says:
On this basis to be talking about whether fusion power is renewable, etc., is entirely hypothetical and mere speculation, and so the article would probably benefit if the fusion paragraph was removed. -- Johnfos 00:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
OK - I understand what your saying and I'll look into it further asap - hopefully this week! Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The reference quoted in the footnote states "Thermonuclear fusion also bodes well for the future and could take over the reins from some existing energy sources towards the middle of the century" on this subpage. Realistically this suggests that "commercial applications are still thirty years or more away" although clearly all these dates are just speculation. The other sources I looked at are all in the 40-100 year range. Given that there are proponents of the idea that fission is renewable, I still think its useful to mention the fusion option and it's possibly renewable designation, although I'll amend the text to state "commercial applications are still distant." Ben MacDui (Talk) 15:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised that you didn't want to reference the New Scientist article; it's quite a reputable, third-party, source. In terms of what has been said there is just too much speculation:
The main point which is omitted in the above sentences is that we don't know whether fusion power is going to work or not. It is simply too early to tell. And this is why discussion of fusion as a commercial power source should not be included in this article. So I'm removing it. -- Johnfos 22:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm not going to make an issue out of it. I think there is case for mentioning the subject in the context of renewable energy, if only because it gets such huge sums of money thrown at it. It's certainly unlikely to be directly relevant in the Scottish context for the foreseebale future. Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
IMO I believe that Ben was perfectly right to include mention of fusion as a renewable energy particularly as the ITER project
ITER Project will soon enter the construction phase in France. This 500MW fusion facility will bring the commercialisation of the technology that much closer to the 20-30 year mark. As to the argument on its claim to being a renewable energy source may I remind the nay sayers that that most renewable sources owe their driving force to the output of our Sun i.e. they are all powered by nuclear fusion.
Peter-Paul O
13:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
In the "Summary of Scotland's resource potential" section, there is a table of technology / capacity / potential capacity / potential energy. Potential energy has units of TWh, and the note says "is a measure of output over a period of time". But over what period of time? I'm assuming its TWh per year, but could someone clarify this, and correct the article. Its a bit meaningless without this. -- Vclaw ( talk) 13:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You are quite right, the 'per annum' is AWOL from the table header. I've corrected this, but don't have the source to hand. I'll check that it doesn't say anything more complicated at the weekend. Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 15:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed references to this company. The mention at SFHCA makes the combination of biogas and hydrogen look interesting but I can't see any obvious non-commercial corroboration. Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 18:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The Micro Systems section says "The Energy Savings Trust estimate that micro-generation could provide 30–40% of the UK's electricity demand by 2050". This is perhaps a bit misleading. Much of the micro generation proposed at this level of penetration would not be renewable. Much of it would be micro CHP burning fossil fuel, or fuel cells which may use non-renewable fuel. See slide 9: http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/uploads/documents/aboutest/Microgeneration%20in%20the%20UK%20-%20final%20report%20REVISED_executive%20summary1.pdf
Micro-generation does not equate to micro-renewables. It would be better to explain this or leave it out.
194.81.29.206 ( talk) 15:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Colin
Thanks for pointing this out - I've amended the text and used the above reference. Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 17:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
"Whisky distilleries have a role to play in keeping Scots warm." Altonbr ( talk) 21:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
See sub-section "Hmmmmm" above. Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 07:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
As Monbiot (2006) points out, a major problem with this subject matter is that apparently prestigious sources regularly provide well-researched information that blatantly contradicts the findings of similar organisations. Some for example, believe that tidal power's contribution to energy production is likely to be trivial.
I have attempted to provide as coherent a picture as possible in the circumstances by, for example, sticking mostly to predictions of maximum output in GW. Using energy productions in TWh might be more useful in some ways but would tend to obscure the underlying assumptions unless every reference included a measure for maximum output, capacity factor and assumed production, which might prove cumbersome.
There seems little doubt that the subject matter will continue to attract public attention for some years to come, and best guesses and assumptions will be replaced with something more akin to hard facts. I can only hope that future editors will attempt to maintain the coherence of the article rather than simply alter numbers using a variety of different measures as new publications come to light. Ben MacDui (Talk) 15:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
This excerpt from Renewable energy in Scotland/Archive 1#Solar energy doesn't make sense:
Megawatt is a unit of power, not of energy. I tried looking at sources, and those I found suffer from the same garbling. For example:
"270 kilowatts per square meter a year" makes no sense. Does kilowatt really mean kWh? We could probably tell by comparing it to the annual energy yield from the solar panel that Henk Verweijmerem refers to. Solar energy says:
If a solar panel is 20% efficient, taking the lower figure for insolation gives: 3.5 * 365 * 0.20 = 255 kWh/year, which is within striking range of Henk Verweijmerem's figure if we take "kilowatts" to mean kWh. -- Teratornis ( talk) 08:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
A new report is now available which would help to update this article: Making Scotland a leader in Green Energy: Draft framework for the development and deployment of renewables in Scotland Johnfos ( talk) 00:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Renewable energy is a very fast-moving area and, as someone who works on a lot of renewable energy articles, I am aware how difficult it can be to keep an article up to date. But this is an FA and it should be leading the way in providing up-to-date information about renewables in Scotland. Instead it is lagging behind quite badly, and this is illustrated by the " Main references" list which contains no recent sources. The " Recent events" section does not really help as the material there is not integrated into the article.
So I'm adding an Update tag to the top of the article in the hope that recent material may be integrated into relevant sections of the article, and more recent sources, especially recent reports, can be used to update the article. Johnfos ( talk) 03:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in getting back here... I've have been on WP for quite a while, and have never said this before about an article, but in this case I believe Wikipedia:Ownership of articles is a big issue. I find that despite constructive suggestions and a helpful tagging, the creator of this article has just decided how things are to be done (see above paragraph) and that is that.
I don't understand why the Update tag has been removed from the top of this article. Having the tag in place would help to alert other editors to the fact that some work needs to be done on this article, and alert readers (many of whom will not read through to the "recent events" section) to the fact that the body of the article needs updating.
In these circumstances, where one editor seems to have ownership of the article, I don't see much point in trying to contribute further. Johnfos ( talk) 00:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
This article needs updating.
Ottre 07:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
You are quite right, in the sense that there are weekly if not daily reports that might conceivably be included. You will note that all the above refer to future rather than actual production. The above ideas are all referred to in the article already and I tend to do significant updates every few months. Ben Mac Dui 14:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I just removed this addition by Spottiswoodestreet from the article and moved it here for discussion. The grammar and formatting leave much to be desired ("for the Scotland"??) but the content may be worth including. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
As the Scottish government has a strong commitment to growing the renewable energy sector, training has now become of vital importance for Scotland. The organization European Energy Centre [5] is launching with a conference at Heriot-Watt University, the beginning of 2011, the Green New Deal in Scotland with the United Nations Environment Programme and the intergovernmental Institute IIR. The European Energy Centre is also publishing with the United Nations - UNEP a special issue of its magazine I&F [6] [7]to inform Scottish businesses of this urgent need to embrace green technologies and train technicians to help grow the renewable energy sector. The Scottish Government has shown strong interest for the activities of the European Energy Centre and UNEP
Re the query about this reference, either I misread it or it has been changed since moving to the new address. Evidence in favour of the latter is provided by the SeaGen article that quotes 3 references supporting the statement "world's first large scale commercial tidal stream generator". However 2 of the links are dead and the third I have no access to. There are various blog references to the Indie article on-line. I've changed the text to fit the existing ref - and thanks for pointing this out. Ben Mac Dui 14:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I have rewritten the short link to a BBC news item about investigations into a Tidal Electric power scheme involving the construction of a Solway Barrage south of Annan,Dumfries and Galloway. I cited the link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/8496758.stm The previous addition was removed,possibly vandalism. User:Frglee 08:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC) frglee 08:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The re edit is fine. At least it is mentioned and linked to regardless of whether or not it is feasible or possible and makes an interesting addition to the article. I note the BBC article says "Their preliminary conclusion is that significant energy reserves are theoretically available but cannot be captured without significant environmental impacts.Any way forward, they say, would have to balance technical, financial and environmental factors and significant additional feasibility work is required." It doesn't say it has been dismissed out of hand. You are of course welcome to your opinions about the waste of cash being used to come to a 'stunningly obvious opinion',but others might not agree with you on this matter. frglee 11:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frglee ( talk • contribs)
I have reverted two edits. Both were interesting but:
Arguably the latter was too detailed anyway but a stat would certainly be useful in the "Summary of Scotland's resource potential" if I can find one. Ben Mac Dui 08:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I think you may want to think of this article on Scotland as a test bed for discussions on the future viability of renewables in ALL countries. If, for example, Scotland cannot make unsubsidised wind power work with its abundance of wind energy, who can? It also serves as an important springboard to information on, in my view, the visionary work in the 1950s to bring hydro power to Scotland. Finally, there are 2mm English-language articles in Wikipedia. No doubt there will be other articles on renewable energy in other countries. I would certainly be interested in reading about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.152.47 ( talk • contribs)
I would justify the 'reads like advertising' tag I placed on this article -and which I feel was removed without any due consideration to its validity- with the following points:
The article 'reads like an advertisement' in using an overly positive, almost ecstatic style of presentation.
All but a very few references are links to vendors, trade organisations or government departments whose role is to promote these products. Where performance data is quoted, it is invariably from such sources. Independently verifiable performance data is notable by its absence, in spite of its being fairly readily available, for example from National Grid energy reports.
I should not need to remind any editor that facts presented within a Wikipedia article should wherever possible be taken from independently verifiable sources. Where a commercial product is being described, advertising copy from the manufacturer, vendor, trade organisation or promoter should be presented as 'Such-and-such CLAIMS this level of performance from the product..' rather than stating that it IS the case. This article violates that principle in too many places to even count.
Likewise, several new and untried technologies are presented as if they had achieved stable production status, whereas in fact the would-be vendors' projections are what is being quoted, the product never having been deployed on a commercial scale.
The article also seeks to play down the negative attributes of these products as reported by pressure-groups opposed to their deployment. Birdstrikes, pollution involved in equipment manufacture, noise, strobing, effect on property prices, damage to tourism and outdoor sports, to name but a few. -And yes, these are REPORTED detractions which might not in some cases be verifiable, but then so are the vendors' claims for the products. An impartial and objective article MUST state both without predjudice.
There are also a fair number of non sequitur arguments, for example, "It is clear that if carbon emissions are to be reduced, a combination of increased production from renewables ... will be required." -This is not necessarily true, because a switch from coal to gas would on its own substantially reduce carbon emissions. Meanwhile an admirably skilful piece of out-of-context quoting in, 'The John Muir Trust has also stated that, "the best renewable energy options around wild land are small-scale.."' totally misrepresents the conclusions of that report, which are principally that the low capacity factor and high intermittency of large-scale wind are problematic when applied to Grid baseload deployment.
I would therefore present my case that this article not only violates Wikipedia's injunction on material which reads as an advertisement, but that it also fails to satisfy the criterion of impartiality. -- Anteaus ( talk) 21:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
The table has many figures which are not referenced, or are very out of date. Struggling to find any updated figures for a lot of the specific sources of energy. I'm wondering if it might be best to use the headings, as given here: http://www.scottishrenewables.com/scottish-renewable-energy-statistics-glance/ rather than looking for wave, separate from tidal; or wood seperate from other biomass? Would make table neater, and more up to date. Arossmorrison ( talk) 23:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 19 external links on
Renewable energy in Scotland. 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 17:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Renewable energy in Scotland. 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 10:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Renewable energy in Scotland. 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) 18:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Renewable energy in Scotland. 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) 16:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Renewable energy in Scotland. 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://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=276372007{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.savetheplanetcentral.com/article.php?id=13136When 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) 07:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Renewable energy in Scotland. 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) 02:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Renewable energy in Scotland. 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) 18:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Renewable energy in Scotland. 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) 18:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Renewable energy in Scotland. 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) 02:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Renewable energy in Scotland. 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) 06:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Renewable energy in Scotland. 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) 03:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | 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 |
Interesting article. There were some clear problems and slight naivity with the biogas section which I have expanded. A waste-to-energy plant in this contect is an incinerator. It still produces CO2 through the combustion of the biological material. In addition to this it combusts plastic (originating from fossil fuels). Recent EU reports (Working Group on Waste Prevention and Recycling ENV/EPOC/WGWPR(2005)4/FINAL 02.02.07) have highlighted an incineration facility has a similar carbon footprint to leaving biological waste to degrade in landfill, once the overall carbon costs of construction have been taken into consideration.
The facility on Lerwick is better than most on some counts as it recovers heat for a district heating scheme, off setting other energy costs, however the bigger picture must be considered. Alex 15:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations to Ben and others on the high quality of this article. However, I've never seen Carbon sequestration, "Clean coal" technology, and Nuclear fusion discussed in a renewables article before. They just don't seem to fit in and I believe that this discussion should be removed. Including material which is outside the scope of the title is not a neutral thing to do. -- Johnfos 01:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I find myself agreeing with most of what you've said above, and think the inclusion of the "Non-renewables" heading will help readers quite a bit. Nuclear fusion is one point where we probably have different views, and I will try to collect my thoughts and write something here tomorrow on that. Otherwise, I may just try to improve the wording a little in a few places, for clarification. Would like to offer every support in your bid for FA status. -- Johnfos 10:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested why 'peat as renewable' is mentioned with surprise above and not at all in the live page ? With a view to not-that-distant history, I would certainly have thought it deserved a mention : The Highlands & Islands were largely peat-powered until a century ago ! I would regard it as notable that an experimental peat-fired power-station used to exist in Caithness circa 1970 ! I remember the old building being pointed out to me, but can't remember exactly where. I understand it was never very successful, due to being a 'dirty' fuel - soot & tar built up in or around the boiler tubes. I don't know where one would find info - does Dounreay still have a visitor centre ? Thurso Library ? Best of luck to the Irish : are they farming peat intensively ? I think Caithness & Sutherland's peat bogs are very much Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Peat#In_Finland has interesting mentions of commercial exploitation. I think other forms of Biomass are regarded as renewable : the distinction between renewables and fossil fuel is just the rate of renewal - maybe one has to draw the line if the Energy crop takes more than a year to re-grow ? 195.137.93.171 22:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I am interested to hear about the peat-fired power-station in Caithness. However, although I believe there is a good case for encouraging the traditional small-scale use of peat, the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories do not classify peat as biofuel and treat it as fossil carbon. See International Mire Conservation Group. I therefore can't think of a reason to include it in the article except to say that it isn't renewable (except, apparently, in Ireland). Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
A little Googling pin-pointed the peat-fired power-station in Caithness to Braehour Farm, 1 mile south of Scotscalder Station. It was set up in 1954 by the Scottish Hydro-Electric Board and closed in 1960, but immortalised in poetry ! Peats- But No Power! -- 195.137.93.171 01:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It's clear that a lot of good work has gone into this article, but there are two related problems. Firstly, the article talks too much about non-renewables such as carbon sequestration, clean coal, and nuclear power. These are clearly off the topic of the article. Secondly, the article is not comprehensive in its discussion of renewables. There is just so much more that could be said about the actual deployment of technologies such as hydroelectricity and wind power in particular. I couldn't find the answer to basic questions such as: What are the ten largest hydro installations in Scotland, in terms of installed capacity? What are the ten largest wind farms in Scotland?
In terms of other renewable energy articles which are GAs, Renewable energy in Iceland, Renewable energy commercialization and Renewable energy commercialization in Australia, there are none which discuss carbon sequestration, clean coal, and nuclear power. And the world's single most authoritative source on the matter, the International Energy Agency, does not classify these as renewable. [1] [2] There is a skewed emphasis in this article, and so much that could be said about what is happening with renewables in Scotland just isn't being said.
I can't believe that there is only one paragraph on hydro. The carbon sequestration section is longer than the hydro section. How can this possibly make sense? -- Johnfos 08:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks, MacDui, for those changes. The issue is resolved now as far as I am concerned and I hope you get FA... In terms of where I am coming from, I simply wanted to make sure that basic information should be included and more speculative info not given undue weight. And thanks for mentioning Samye Ling. regards, Johnfos 04:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The citations are incomplete on this article; pls see WP:WIAFA regarding consistent formatting of footnotes, and examples here. All sources need a publisher, websources need a last accessdate, and sources need a date and author where given.
Also, there should not be an imbedded link in References (Scottish Renewables Forum. Market and Planning Report (various).[12] Pls repair;
I'll check back in at a later date, but would not want to have to make these repairs myself before any possible main page appearance. Also, per WP:LAYOUT, portals belong in See also; I moved them.
Pls see WP:MOS#Quotations; "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more is named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote."
I'm sorry no one seems to have reviewed for MOS issues at FAC, but these things should be attended to quickly so a cleanup tag isn't needed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
"Whisky distilleries have a role to play in keeping Scots warm." Am I really the only one that noticed the humor in that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.144.239 ( talk) 20:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I hope not! Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
My preference would be to remove at least most of the citations and use the lead as a summary of what is in the article, and as such have the citations appear later in the article where each topic is addressed. 199.125.109.77 07:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The first line "The production of renewable energy in Scotland is an issue that has come to the fore [my italics] in technical, economic and political terms during the opening years of the 21st century" seems problematic as an introduction to the whole topic. It implies that renewable energy in Scotland did not receive high levels of attention (in technical, economic and political terms) in the 20th century - that is to say that it was in the background. The history of HEP alone would make me doubt this. Greenshed 09:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The issue was not 'to the fore' for most of the twentieth century. A conference on the subject in the early eighties lamented the fact that the government spent more on military brass bands than on research into renewables - and this in the aftermath of the oil crisis of the seventies. Ten years later wind turbine proposals were regarded as eccentric. The mid to late nineties was the beginning of serious investment (outside of hydro, which was a fairly brief and localised phenomenon from a construction perspective). Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a fascinating and impressive article, but how does it fit into the Wikipedia project? Does Ben MacDui envisage a series of articles on Renewable energy in England, Renewable energy in Russia, Renewable energy in Thailand &c? If not, are the title and focus right? Deipnosophista 11:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the one remaining area, of those recently mentioned, where some further discussion here may be helpful.
The comment regarding fusion power, that "commercial applications are still twenty years or more away[82]", surprised me as it is the most optimistic assessment I've ever seen, and the reference cited didn't seem to mention this.
This is what the Fusion power article says:
On this basis to be talking about whether fusion power is renewable, etc., is entirely hypothetical and mere speculation, and so the article would probably benefit if the fusion paragraph was removed. -- Johnfos 00:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
OK - I understand what your saying and I'll look into it further asap - hopefully this week! Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The reference quoted in the footnote states "Thermonuclear fusion also bodes well for the future and could take over the reins from some existing energy sources towards the middle of the century" on this subpage. Realistically this suggests that "commercial applications are still thirty years or more away" although clearly all these dates are just speculation. The other sources I looked at are all in the 40-100 year range. Given that there are proponents of the idea that fission is renewable, I still think its useful to mention the fusion option and it's possibly renewable designation, although I'll amend the text to state "commercial applications are still distant." Ben MacDui (Talk) 15:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised that you didn't want to reference the New Scientist article; it's quite a reputable, third-party, source. In terms of what has been said there is just too much speculation:
The main point which is omitted in the above sentences is that we don't know whether fusion power is going to work or not. It is simply too early to tell. And this is why discussion of fusion as a commercial power source should not be included in this article. So I'm removing it. -- Johnfos 22:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm not going to make an issue out of it. I think there is case for mentioning the subject in the context of renewable energy, if only because it gets such huge sums of money thrown at it. It's certainly unlikely to be directly relevant in the Scottish context for the foreseebale future. Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
IMO I believe that Ben was perfectly right to include mention of fusion as a renewable energy particularly as the ITER project
ITER Project will soon enter the construction phase in France. This 500MW fusion facility will bring the commercialisation of the technology that much closer to the 20-30 year mark. As to the argument on its claim to being a renewable energy source may I remind the nay sayers that that most renewable sources owe their driving force to the output of our Sun i.e. they are all powered by nuclear fusion.
Peter-Paul O
13:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
In the "Summary of Scotland's resource potential" section, there is a table of technology / capacity / potential capacity / potential energy. Potential energy has units of TWh, and the note says "is a measure of output over a period of time". But over what period of time? I'm assuming its TWh per year, but could someone clarify this, and correct the article. Its a bit meaningless without this. -- Vclaw ( talk) 13:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You are quite right, the 'per annum' is AWOL from the table header. I've corrected this, but don't have the source to hand. I'll check that it doesn't say anything more complicated at the weekend. Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 15:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed references to this company. The mention at SFHCA makes the combination of biogas and hydrogen look interesting but I can't see any obvious non-commercial corroboration. Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 18:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The Micro Systems section says "The Energy Savings Trust estimate that micro-generation could provide 30–40% of the UK's electricity demand by 2050". This is perhaps a bit misleading. Much of the micro generation proposed at this level of penetration would not be renewable. Much of it would be micro CHP burning fossil fuel, or fuel cells which may use non-renewable fuel. See slide 9: http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/uploads/documents/aboutest/Microgeneration%20in%20the%20UK%20-%20final%20report%20REVISED_executive%20summary1.pdf
Micro-generation does not equate to micro-renewables. It would be better to explain this or leave it out.
194.81.29.206 ( talk) 15:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Colin
Thanks for pointing this out - I've amended the text and used the above reference. Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 17:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
"Whisky distilleries have a role to play in keeping Scots warm." Altonbr ( talk) 21:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
See sub-section "Hmmmmm" above. Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 07:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
As Monbiot (2006) points out, a major problem with this subject matter is that apparently prestigious sources regularly provide well-researched information that blatantly contradicts the findings of similar organisations. Some for example, believe that tidal power's contribution to energy production is likely to be trivial.
I have attempted to provide as coherent a picture as possible in the circumstances by, for example, sticking mostly to predictions of maximum output in GW. Using energy productions in TWh might be more useful in some ways but would tend to obscure the underlying assumptions unless every reference included a measure for maximum output, capacity factor and assumed production, which might prove cumbersome.
There seems little doubt that the subject matter will continue to attract public attention for some years to come, and best guesses and assumptions will be replaced with something more akin to hard facts. I can only hope that future editors will attempt to maintain the coherence of the article rather than simply alter numbers using a variety of different measures as new publications come to light. Ben MacDui (Talk) 15:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
This excerpt from Renewable energy in Scotland/Archive 1#Solar energy doesn't make sense:
Megawatt is a unit of power, not of energy. I tried looking at sources, and those I found suffer from the same garbling. For example:
"270 kilowatts per square meter a year" makes no sense. Does kilowatt really mean kWh? We could probably tell by comparing it to the annual energy yield from the solar panel that Henk Verweijmerem refers to. Solar energy says:
If a solar panel is 20% efficient, taking the lower figure for insolation gives: 3.5 * 365 * 0.20 = 255 kWh/year, which is within striking range of Henk Verweijmerem's figure if we take "kilowatts" to mean kWh. -- Teratornis ( talk) 08:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
A new report is now available which would help to update this article: Making Scotland a leader in Green Energy: Draft framework for the development and deployment of renewables in Scotland Johnfos ( talk) 00:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Renewable energy is a very fast-moving area and, as someone who works on a lot of renewable energy articles, I am aware how difficult it can be to keep an article up to date. But this is an FA and it should be leading the way in providing up-to-date information about renewables in Scotland. Instead it is lagging behind quite badly, and this is illustrated by the " Main references" list which contains no recent sources. The " Recent events" section does not really help as the material there is not integrated into the article.
So I'm adding an Update tag to the top of the article in the hope that recent material may be integrated into relevant sections of the article, and more recent sources, especially recent reports, can be used to update the article. Johnfos ( talk) 03:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in getting back here... I've have been on WP for quite a while, and have never said this before about an article, but in this case I believe Wikipedia:Ownership of articles is a big issue. I find that despite constructive suggestions and a helpful tagging, the creator of this article has just decided how things are to be done (see above paragraph) and that is that.
I don't understand why the Update tag has been removed from the top of this article. Having the tag in place would help to alert other editors to the fact that some work needs to be done on this article, and alert readers (many of whom will not read through to the "recent events" section) to the fact that the body of the article needs updating.
In these circumstances, where one editor seems to have ownership of the article, I don't see much point in trying to contribute further. Johnfos ( talk) 00:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
This article needs updating.
Ottre 07:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
You are quite right, in the sense that there are weekly if not daily reports that might conceivably be included. You will note that all the above refer to future rather than actual production. The above ideas are all referred to in the article already and I tend to do significant updates every few months. Ben Mac Dui 14:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I just removed this addition by Spottiswoodestreet from the article and moved it here for discussion. The grammar and formatting leave much to be desired ("for the Scotland"??) but the content may be worth including. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
As the Scottish government has a strong commitment to growing the renewable energy sector, training has now become of vital importance for Scotland. The organization European Energy Centre [5] is launching with a conference at Heriot-Watt University, the beginning of 2011, the Green New Deal in Scotland with the United Nations Environment Programme and the intergovernmental Institute IIR. The European Energy Centre is also publishing with the United Nations - UNEP a special issue of its magazine I&F [6] [7]to inform Scottish businesses of this urgent need to embrace green technologies and train technicians to help grow the renewable energy sector. The Scottish Government has shown strong interest for the activities of the European Energy Centre and UNEP
Re the query about this reference, either I misread it or it has been changed since moving to the new address. Evidence in favour of the latter is provided by the SeaGen article that quotes 3 references supporting the statement "world's first large scale commercial tidal stream generator". However 2 of the links are dead and the third I have no access to. There are various blog references to the Indie article on-line. I've changed the text to fit the existing ref - and thanks for pointing this out. Ben Mac Dui 14:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I have rewritten the short link to a BBC news item about investigations into a Tidal Electric power scheme involving the construction of a Solway Barrage south of Annan,Dumfries and Galloway. I cited the link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/8496758.stm The previous addition was removed,possibly vandalism. User:Frglee 08:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC) frglee 08:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The re edit is fine. At least it is mentioned and linked to regardless of whether or not it is feasible or possible and makes an interesting addition to the article. I note the BBC article says "Their preliminary conclusion is that significant energy reserves are theoretically available but cannot be captured without significant environmental impacts.Any way forward, they say, would have to balance technical, financial and environmental factors and significant additional feasibility work is required." It doesn't say it has been dismissed out of hand. You are of course welcome to your opinions about the waste of cash being used to come to a 'stunningly obvious opinion',but others might not agree with you on this matter. frglee 11:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frglee ( talk • contribs)
I have reverted two edits. Both were interesting but:
Arguably the latter was too detailed anyway but a stat would certainly be useful in the "Summary of Scotland's resource potential" if I can find one. Ben Mac Dui 08:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I think you may want to think of this article on Scotland as a test bed for discussions on the future viability of renewables in ALL countries. If, for example, Scotland cannot make unsubsidised wind power work with its abundance of wind energy, who can? It also serves as an important springboard to information on, in my view, the visionary work in the 1950s to bring hydro power to Scotland. Finally, there are 2mm English-language articles in Wikipedia. No doubt there will be other articles on renewable energy in other countries. I would certainly be interested in reading about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.152.47 ( talk • contribs)
I would justify the 'reads like advertising' tag I placed on this article -and which I feel was removed without any due consideration to its validity- with the following points:
The article 'reads like an advertisement' in using an overly positive, almost ecstatic style of presentation.
All but a very few references are links to vendors, trade organisations or government departments whose role is to promote these products. Where performance data is quoted, it is invariably from such sources. Independently verifiable performance data is notable by its absence, in spite of its being fairly readily available, for example from National Grid energy reports.
I should not need to remind any editor that facts presented within a Wikipedia article should wherever possible be taken from independently verifiable sources. Where a commercial product is being described, advertising copy from the manufacturer, vendor, trade organisation or promoter should be presented as 'Such-and-such CLAIMS this level of performance from the product..' rather than stating that it IS the case. This article violates that principle in too many places to even count.
Likewise, several new and untried technologies are presented as if they had achieved stable production status, whereas in fact the would-be vendors' projections are what is being quoted, the product never having been deployed on a commercial scale.
The article also seeks to play down the negative attributes of these products as reported by pressure-groups opposed to their deployment. Birdstrikes, pollution involved in equipment manufacture, noise, strobing, effect on property prices, damage to tourism and outdoor sports, to name but a few. -And yes, these are REPORTED detractions which might not in some cases be verifiable, but then so are the vendors' claims for the products. An impartial and objective article MUST state both without predjudice.
There are also a fair number of non sequitur arguments, for example, "It is clear that if carbon emissions are to be reduced, a combination of increased production from renewables ... will be required." -This is not necessarily true, because a switch from coal to gas would on its own substantially reduce carbon emissions. Meanwhile an admirably skilful piece of out-of-context quoting in, 'The John Muir Trust has also stated that, "the best renewable energy options around wild land are small-scale.."' totally misrepresents the conclusions of that report, which are principally that the low capacity factor and high intermittency of large-scale wind are problematic when applied to Grid baseload deployment.
I would therefore present my case that this article not only violates Wikipedia's injunction on material which reads as an advertisement, but that it also fails to satisfy the criterion of impartiality. -- Anteaus ( talk) 21:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
The table has many figures which are not referenced, or are very out of date. Struggling to find any updated figures for a lot of the specific sources of energy. I'm wondering if it might be best to use the headings, as given here: http://www.scottishrenewables.com/scottish-renewable-energy-statistics-glance/ rather than looking for wave, separate from tidal; or wood seperate from other biomass? Would make table neater, and more up to date. Arossmorrison ( talk) 23:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 19 external links on
Renewable energy in Scotland. 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 17:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Renewable energy in Scotland. 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 10:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Renewable energy in Scotland. 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) 18:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Renewable energy in Scotland. 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) 16:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Renewable energy in Scotland. 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://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=276372007{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.savetheplanetcentral.com/article.php?id=13136When 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) 07:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Renewable energy in Scotland. 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) 02:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Renewable energy in Scotland. 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) 18:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Renewable energy in Scotland. 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) 18:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Renewable energy in Scotland. 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) 02:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Renewable energy in Scotland. 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) 06:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Renewable energy in Scotland. 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) 03:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)