Talk:Renewable energy in the United States

What the heck is going on here?

Why is the Apollo Alliance (Social Justice,Environmental,and Labor) directed by Van Jones and others, as featured on the Glenn Beck show on Fox News (2009-08-01) redirecting to "Renewable energy in the United States?"

Jessemckay (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Failed

So, I'm a bit confused... is this article still under construction? If not, then it fails broad coverage and the GA immediately as there is no mention of hydro power (am I missing something? for instance, the A rated Renewable energy in Iceland discusses it) . Aside from that, there are these problems:

• "Renewable Energy Organizations" section reads like an advertisement, the difference in tone between this section and the rest of the article is marked. I really hope it wasn't copied verbatim from somewhere...
• "Wind power costs" subsection is a verbatim copy from the Energy Policy pdf.
• Is the EESI logo picture really necessary?

That's all that comes to mind right now with regards to the GA criteria. Everything else looks fine, barring more prevalent copy and paste. --Meowist 06:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Failed response

So, I'm a bit confused... is this article still under construction? If not, then it fails broad coverage and the GA immediately as there is no mention of hydro power (am I missing something? for instance, the A rated Renewable energy in Iceland discusses it) .

No, the article is not still under construction and, yes, you are missing something. The title of this article is not Renewable energy in the United States, which is a much broader topic. The article is called Renewable energy commercialization in the US and is about new renewable energy technologies which are being commercialized at the present time. The most important of these is wind power. Obviously this point needs to be better explained.

Hydro power is not being commercialized in the United States currently? You mean to tell me no one is proposing small and major hydro plants and no one in making and selling turbines?... come on. The aspect is totally missing and this article goes into great detail about the newest and greatest solar and wind tech while ignoring hydro.--Meowist 22:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Aside from that, there are these problems:

• "Renewable Energy Organizations" section reads like an advertisement, the difference in tone between this section and the rest of the article is marked. I really hope it wasn't copied verbatim from somewhere...

The section was based on the relevant WP articles which are wikilinked and reliable sources are provided. Again this discussion on "Renewable energy organisations" is part of the emphasis on non-technical issues relating to commercialization. These organisations are shaping the deployment of the new technologies.

That's nice, but my criticism was not about the factual accuracy, but the tone - it is not encyclopedic. The text existing like that in another article is no excuse - this article was put up for GA and standards apply. --Meowist 22:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• "Wind power costs" subsection is a verbatim copy from the Energy Policy pdf.

These four lines can easily be revised.

• Is the EESI logo picture really necessary?

Happy to remove the logo.

That's all that comes to mind right now with regards to the GA criteria. Everything else looks fine, barring more prevalent copy and paste. --Meowist 06:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I deliberately listed this article in the "Social Sciences" section of the Good Article candidates page so that it would be clear that this was not just a discussion of a shopping list of technologies. Perhaps there is a reviewer who is more familiar with the public acceptance of innovations. I would appreciate a re-appraisal by another reviewer please.

If possible, I would also appreciate getting a reviewer who doesn't have so many reviews on the go at once. This article was selected by Meowist from the GA candidates list three days ago, and is one of three articles which he has been reviewing during that time. (The other articles were Diet of Japan and Reincarnation research.) -- Johnfos 07:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry I didn't manage to get to your article quickly, but people have jobs and such. Also, I don't see what relevance the fact that I was simultaneously reviewing 2 other articles has - it doesn't taint me or make my reviewing inherently flawed. Nonetheless, you're welcome to another review. --Meowist 22:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

New GA review

Hi. After a review of the article and the previous GA discussion, I think the article is pretty close to GA status, but not just yet. It is certainly a very good article, very informative in its limited scope, but there do seem to be some nagging issues (some of which have already be mentioned but still persist). My suggestions mostly piggy back of the previous suggestions made by Meowist:

• The "Renewable Energy Organizations" still reads like an advertisement. Part of the problem lies with the prose style of the original pages, especially since none of them are referenced very well anyways (a grand total of three references among four articles. And all three are in the American Council on Renewable Energy article). What I might suggest is to either:

• Eliminate the prose altogether (most of it is just copy and pasted from the main articles anyways) and merely provide links to the main pages, perhaps with an overarching bit of prose for the section as a whole.

OR

• Rewrite the main articles a bit (fixing prose style, adding references, and expanding content), so that appropriate portions of the articles can be transcluded. (This option is more work, but in the long term would probably give better results)

The main issue is that you are depending on the strength of the original articles, which do not hold up under GA scrutiny. Afterall, the entire text from the American Council on Renewable Energy has been transcluded onto this page. Seems kind of sloppy, not to mention unnecessary.

• The "Wind power costs" is still pretty much verbatim from the source (just reworded slightly). I don't see this as a deal breaker necessarily but, again, it seems somewhat sloppy.
• Overall the article is well referenced, but the format jumps around alot. Ideally, all references should be done using a citation template.
• The "External links" section is a bit bloated.
• The "Future power stations" category is misleading.
• The intro needs to be expanded considerably, to effectively summarize the article. An initial list of renewable energy sources (bio, wind, solar, etc.) might be a good place to start. A sentence like that is in the "Rationale for renewables" section, but might me more appropriate in the introduction.
• The "Aesthetics and the environment" in the wind section seems unneeded to the topic at hand. Or, conversely, it may just need to state more clearly its importance to the topic.
• And, along with Meowist's concerns, what about hydro? Also ocean power systems? And biomass? (I'm ignorant on this topic, but I assume biomass is different than biofuel?) These are mentioned briefly in the background section but that's it. Even if there has been limited commercialization in those areas, explain why.

Overall I think it is a very good article, but it does need some work. For the time being I'll put the nomination on hold (rather than failing it outright). Hopefully you can find some time to implement some of my and Meowist's suggestions. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to ask here. Drewcifer3000 12:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder since I forgot to put it in my original review. Since the GA nomination is on hold, you have a total of 7 days to address the issues noted above. On July 31 the nomination will fail, but you're still welcome to renominate the article at a later date. Drewcifer3000 08:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but I have to admit that I'm not inclined to take the article in the direction suggested, and am moving on to other things. -- Johnfos 09:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've gone ahead and failed its nomination. Drewcifer3000 09:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Renewable energy in the United States

I would like an additional article about Renewable energy in the United States, including generation of renewable energy in the USA.--Nukeless (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Where is hydroelectricity

Isn't it a renewable energy?Calvingao (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ordering of sub-sections

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Renewable energy about the order of the renewable energy type sub-sections in all related articles. Currently in most articles there is no recognisable order. It is proposed to adopt either alphabetical order or order by importance. Alphabetic order would help legibility of the article and consistency with other articles and templates. Order by current importance (electricity generation) for the US would be Hydro, Bio, Wind, Geo, Solar. Your feedback is welcome. Elekhh (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty happy with the ordering as it is. Hydroelectricity is currently the largest producer of renewable power in the U.S., and so comes first. The US is the world leader in wind power, and this comes next. And then the stragglers. Johnfos (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Moody Sunburst.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Moody Sunburst.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

New York Times resources

• A Gold Rush of Subsidies in Clean Energy Search by ERIC LIPTON and CLIFFORD KRAUSS, published November 11, 2011
• Wind Money Fuels Spending and Benefits in Small Schools by MORGAN SMITH published November 10, 2011
• previously Future of Solar and Wind Power May Hinge on Federal Aid by KATE GALBRAITH published: October 25, 2011

99.181.132.65 (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)