Talk:Fossil fuel phase-out/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Main causes

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)

See also

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)

Removed links whose only relevance to coal phase out are that they are about US coal. Plazak (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The links section is still a mess, full of activist/advocacy websites that don't belong in a neutral encyclopedia. nonewcoal.org.uk? coal-is-dirty.com? 11 different links to Sourcewatch? Curious though, no links to Friends of Coal...wonder why? 96.239.140.104 (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cost / Challenges?

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 article needs additional citations for verification??

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)

Objectivity

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)

Refs for this section

References

  1. ^ http://www.engineerlive.com/Power-Engineer/Focus_on_Coal/Coal-fired_power_plants_capacity_to_grow_by_35_per_cent_in_next_10_years/21600/
  2. ^ http://gregor.us/coal/transition-back-to-coal
  3. ^ http://powermin.nic.in/indian_electricity_scenario/pdf/Annual_Report_2008-09_English.pdf

Fossil fuels: coal, oil, gas

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)

Merge this article with Environmental effects of coal?

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.

Reply to unknown user

Why is that?

--Id447 (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Political?

Is there any plausible reason why:

should be in the See also section? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

  • the first article - yes; the second - no. The article could do with links in the section on individual countries to more indepth articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there any plausible reason why:

should be merged User:ar? 99.52.151.221 (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain why Politics of global warming is relevant? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Coal Phase-Out vs. Fossil-Fuel Phase-Out

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)

Resource for Denmark

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)

Isn't another purpose to reduce the immediate health threats and preventable deaths caused by fossil fuel emissions?

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)

Usage of coal for electricity generation in U.S. declining

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)

POV and OR problems in article (forex, File:US energy consumption 2035-Low Carbon Case.png)

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)

(Delphi234 replied at his talk page -- I wrote there, not realizing he was active here. Transcluded here for wider discussion -- --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC))
That is just a straight line extrapolation of the low carbon case. It is an illustration of the concept. It is not a projection of actual growth/decline, but instead represents the low carbon proposal, a proposal to eliminate coal and petroleum by a certain year, in this case 2030, a popular choice. I can see one error, though, in that it shows a decline in total energy from 2010 to 2015, which I believe is made up for by an increase, not a decrease in natural gas during that period. I will take a look at updating the graph sometime next year or the following, when data for the period becomes available, to fix that error. There is, though, a trend toward decreasing total use of electricity possibly as much as to 50% of what was used in 2000 by 2050, due mostly to efficiency improvements, and the elimination of energy use by buildings. See the book Carbon Free and Nuclear Free, for example. From the birth of this country there has always been a 3%/year growth in total energy use, but whether that will continue is unknown, although there is no harm in drawing a graph to show what it would look like if it did or did not. It is, after all, just an illustration of a concept. The proposal was to eliminate carbon by 2030. This graph just shows what that looks like visually. Delphi234 (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but the chart still looks like OR to me. And not likely to occur -- forex, natural gas use is rising sharply, as large shale gas resources come online. And nuclear power is very unlikely to vanish -- and why would you want to give that impression, as it is carbon-free energy? To be blunt, the chart looks like fantasy to me -- as does the proposal to eliminate fossil fuels anytime soon. I'll look for RS's pointing out how unlikely this is to happen, as time permits. POV problem as it stands. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Tillman that this is WP:OR, and should be removed. The likeliness or unlikeliness of the graphed scenario, however, is immaterial. It would be illuminating to present some published phaseout scenario, but we can't have wiki editors just making things up and inserting them. Plazak (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Delphi234, despite you good work, if the data in the graph is not supported by a reliable source, this is your original research and the graph should be removed. Can you find actual data from a reliable source (US DoE, IEA, etc), then you can use a similar scenario to substitute the one you did. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding balancing viewpoints

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:

"Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”

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)

Nice cherry-pick... The Hansen quote you give is part of his argument that a carbon tax is necessary to reduce fossil fuel usage. Quoting from later in the article: "Economic models show that this fee would yield a 30% reduction of carbon emissions at the end of the 10 years, and we would be well on our way to phasing out our fossil fuel addiction by mid-century." In fact, the thesis of that article is exactly the opposite of your claimed missing (false) balance. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Disagree re CP, but.... please supply a better one, then -- better yet, a non-primary RS. Thx, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Mainstream perspective on renewables

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
Wind power: worldwide installed capacity[2]

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)

References

  1. ^ European Photovoltaic Industry Association (2012). "Market Report 2011".
  2. ^ "GWEC, Global Wind Report Annual Market Update". Gwec.net. Retrieved 2011-11-21.
  3. ^ Deploying Renewables 2011: Executive Summary
  4. ^ Deploying Renewables 2011: Executive Summary
  5. ^ REN21 (2013). "Renewables global futures report 2013" (PDF).{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ "Implementation of Green Bookkeeping at Reykjavik Energy" (PDF). Rio02.com. Retrieved 2012-11-01.
  7. ^ "Energy Rich Japan". Energyrichjapan.info. Retrieved 2012-11-01.
  8. ^ "Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-11-01.
  9. ^ "A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy". Ieer.org. 2012-03-13. Retrieved 2012-11-01.
  10. ^ "A Road Map for U.S. Energy Policy" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-11-01.
  11. ^ Carrasco, Alicia (2012-04-09). "Denmark commits to 100% renewable energy". Emeter.com. Retrieved 2012-11-01.
  12. ^ "Vision 2050". Inforse.org. 2010-12-02. Retrieved 2012-11-01.
  13. ^ "EU Sustainable Energy Vision 2040". Inforse.org. 2010-12-02. Retrieved 2012-11-01.
  14. ^ "Zero Carbon World". Zerocarbonbritain.org. 2011-11-09. Retrieved 2012-11-01.
  15. ^ Mark A. Delucchi and Mark Z. Jacobson (2011, Vol. 39). "Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part II: Reliability, system and transmission costs, and policies" (PDF). Energy Policy. Elsevier Ltd. pp. 1170–1190. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  16. ^ Kate Galbraith. 100 Percent Renewables by 2030? Green Inc., December 1, 2009.
  17. ^ Cite error: The named reference wws was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

-- Johnfos (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

  • This seems promising (if likely still POV towards optimism). You have some RS-looking sources anyway. Why not lead with this, and drop the OR chart?

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)

Capacity factors and variability

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)

Top 10 countries
by nameplate windpower capacity
(2012 year-end)[1]
Country Windpower capacity
(MW) ǂprovisional		 % world total
China 75,564ǂ 26.8
United States 60,007 21.2
Germany 31,332 11.1
Spain 22,796 8.1
India 18,421 6.5
United Kingdom 8,845 3.0
Italy 8,144 2.9
France 7,196ǂ 2.5
Canada 6,200 2.2
Portugal 4,525 1.6
(rest of world) 39,853 14.1
World total 282,482 MW 100%
Top 10 countries
by windpower electricity production
(2011 totals)[2]
Country Windpower production
(TWh)		 % world total
United States 120.5 26.2
China 88.6 19.3
Germany 48.9 10.6
Spain 42.4 9.2
India 24.9 5.4
Canada 19.7 4.3
United Kingdom 15.5 3.4
France 12.2 2.7
Italy 9.9 2.1
Denmark 9.8 2.1
(rest of world) 67.7 14.7
World total 459.9 TWh 100%

-- Johnfos (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for that! You really know this stuff. I'm just a stove-up old geologist, who spent part of a career looking for fuel for the nukes....
Is there some reason your nice chart doesn't show actual yield as % of nameplate capacity? From real-world experience, I mean. Some of the % s I've seen are remarkably low.... Thanks & Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:38, 13 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)

Biofuels

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)

Modern biofuels, produced in a responsible way, have many advantages, see Cellulosic ethanol commercialization and Sustainable biofuel. Johnfos (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The relatively small fraction of biofuels which are sustainable still have all of those disadvantages. Synthetic fuels from recycled carbon and renewable energy have none, and are increasingly becoming commercial.[6][7] Why remove links to carbon neutral fuel? 71.212.249.246 (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Well user:71.212.249.246, that is your opinion about biofuels, and I am aware it is shared by some people, but this is an encyclopedia. In a nutshell, read the article sustainable biofuels which is fully supported by reliable sources, because not all biofuels are created equal. Brazilian sugarcane ethanol is widely recognized as a sustainable biofuel, just as biodiesel from some places in Asia have most of the negative effects you mentioned. Even American corn ethanol, depending on the production path, could be considered appropriate. Check the article about Low-carbon fuel standard to see what CARB, EPA and the European Union are doing to guarantee that biofuels that enter their markets comply with their standards, including ILUC. Finally, available land limits the long term contribution of biofuels, everybody recognizes they are just part of the solution.--Mariordo (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Carbon neutral fuel diagram and slides

207.224.44.181 (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Prominent individuals supporting a coal moratorium or phase-out

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)

I would say people with a Wikipedia article who are known to be for/against, every person who has ever commented on it shouldn't be listed. We don't list every time the Brooklyn Bridge appeared in television, we shouldn't list every time someone supported or went against this. At a minimum for the time being I would say just the people with Wikipedia articles however, unless an opposition/support was quite significant. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Non-notables removed. Plazak (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Why no mention of nuclear power?

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)

Yes, I agree there is cheerleading going on here (tho less than before). Ignoring nuclear power might be the worst omission, and really should be fixed. Anyone? --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Is there anywhere in the world that nuclear is not many times the cost of wind, water, and solar? Tim AFS (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead paragraph in "Problems of fossil fuels" describes instead "Problems of biofuels"

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?

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" should be renamed to "Move toward alternative energy sources"

"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)

Alternative energy was a popular phrase thirty years ago, but not today. Today the correct phrase of renewable energy is used. The term alternative energy implies other than mainstream. When renewable becomes mainstream it is pointless to call it "alternative". If you look at the article Age of Oil, you will see that in the mid-20th century (over 50 years ago), it was expected that the oil age would be replaced with the atomic age. That idea fizzled out in the U.S. with Three Mile Island, and in the rest of the world with Chernobyl and particularly with Fukushima. Nuclear has peaked at less than 3% of total energy use when you measure it by the electricity it produces, instead of tripling the output to reflect the thermal output, as is done by the IEA.[8] pg.60 It is not likely that nuclear will play a serious role in energy use until we use fusion power for interstellar travel, and that is centuries away, if not millennia away, and unlikely that nuclear will ever play a role on the Earth, other than as radiation in the Earth's crust, which creates over half of the geothermal heat we use. There are still a few people who think that nuclear fission is the best thing since sliced bread, but they are dead wrong. You may think that wind and solar are "ridiculous", but that view is like thinking the earth is flat or that gravity does not work on this planet. A review of all of the sources of energy available to us in the mid 21st century and beyond leaves us with wind and solar and a little bit of geothermal and nothing else. But don't take my word for it. Find a wp:RS. A few years ago most people talked about using 20% renewable, now the discussion has moved to using 100% renewable, which will likely require thirty days average use of storage at 80% demand. Wind and solar are both seasonal, which creates a lot of extra energy part of the year, spawning seasonal industries to soak up the extra supply and requiring long term storage, mostly in the form of hydrogen. You can view one "solution" for 2050 at the NREL website, using 80% renewable electricity.[9] The baseline, using more or less the party line projection that there will be no significant wind addition after 2012 and no significant solar added after 2016, and that there is an infinite amount of oil available is at:[10] I would expect to see 80% renewable and carbon free electricity by 2031 and 98% renewable and carbon free electricity by 2050. Today about 10% of our electricity and less than 2% of all of our energy is renewable and carbon free, I would expect that to increase to 90% by 2050, with the rest mostly biomass and biofuel (both renewable but not carbon free). Today 94% of our energy comes from coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium. I would estimate all of them combined providing only 2% of our energy by 2050, but the best way to find out is to wait and see. Delphi234 (talk) 07:32, 4 September 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)

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Carbon neutral / carbon negative fuels

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)

With which specific claims do you disagree? What do you think is impossible? Here are recent refs on real-world power-to-gas: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. As for gas-to-liquids, Shell's Pearl GTL plant in Qatar has been producing 10% of its global transportation fuel output since 2012. I agree the section needs to be updated with those or similarly more current refs. Tim AFS (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
"Carbon-neutral fuels are synthetic fuels..." Synthetic fuels made from burning coal are not carbon neutral. When the coal is burned, it releases CO2, then when the synthetic fuels are burned, they create CO2. There is no such thing as a carbon neutral fuel. See for example: Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources. Even onshore wind, considered one of the best options, is not carbon neutral. Nevertheless, onshore wind can be carbon neutral or carbon negative if emissions are pumped underground using electrical generators powered by the wind. Brian Everlasting (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Synthetic fuels from power to gas and gas to liquids aren't made from coal. If they are made from CO2 in flue exhaust, hydrogenated with the Sabatier reaction, then they are carbon neutral. Photovoltaic will soon be less expensive than onshore wind, and it is falling very fast in cost because of new aqueous phase manufacture of solar cells. Tim AFS (talk) 00:32, 20 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)

I looked at the section, and it appeared to have a lot of useful sourced info, so I restored it again, with some edits to its intro to account for some of the comments here. I have not gone over the whole thing carefully, and would not be surprised if it needs more work, but it doesn't seem right to just chuck it out. Dicklyon (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I have a problem with including "recycled from power plant flue-gas emissions, recovered from automotive exhaust gas" these aren't neutral. The carbon comes from fossil fuel, is temporarily in a man made fuel, then goes to the atmosphere. If a fuel is going to be carbon neural, don't put more carbon in the atmosphere, like biogas for instance. Dougmcdonell (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I understand that you have a problem with it. Let's just try to be sure we represent what sources support. Dicklyon (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 17 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

  • Oppose: as demonstrated by this ngram "fossil fuel" is a much more commonly used term than "fossil-fuel". The current main article is at fossil fuel as are all the examples you wish to change. There is no reason to change to a less commonly used term. Ebonelm (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
    Your statistics are biased: both terms are correct in a different grammatical context (such as "coal is a fossil fuel" or "coal is extracted by the fossil-fuel industry") and their relative frequency does not affect what is grammatically correct (hyphenation is required for the compound modifier). Kalimera Pouliths (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC).
    Care to rethink the reason for your oppose, Ebonelm. I think you need to think about the grammatical function. Tony (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
    You're forgetting about its interchangeability factor. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 17:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose because "fossil fuel" is an open compound word (i.e., with a space) as evidenced by its entry as a noun (with a space) at Merriam Webster;s online definition. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Kalimera Pouliths (above) is correct in saying that compounds are generally hyphenated when used adjectivally. My most recent source (New Oxford Style Manual, 2016) supports this (at page 60) but also notes that according to context "there is a drift to using one or two words, e.g., an international peacekeeping force or high quality teaching unless there could be an ambiguity, e.g., cross-training of staff rather than cross training of staff". Personally, I can see some potential ambiguity in some but not all of the fossil fuel examples. Bjenks (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see no pressing argument for a change. A search of Wikipedia for pages containing fuel, shows many examples that are not hyphenated. ie: nuclear, aviation, jet, ethanol etc. Dougmcdonell (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
...but please understand the difference between the same words used as a compound noun vs adjectivally before another noun--that is the whole point.Bjenks (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
OK let's get picky. If we were writing "phase-out of fossil fuels", then FF is the noun in a prepositional phrase that reads "of fossil fuels". The prepositional phrase would serve as the adjective. In our titles we have implied the "of" structure but that does not convert the noun in the adjectival prepositional phrase into an adjective all by itself. "Fossil fuels" is a noun, and the implied adjectival phrase is the adjective. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
NAEG you're an idiot... note, that's not a personal attack, since I am NAEG.... An argument can be made for "fossil fuel" being used as an adjective after all. Specifically, a "compound adjective".
  • National Geo Manual of style says (1)m. Compound nouns appearing in Webster's and widely used do not need to be hyphenated when used as adjectives unless ambiguous. For example: polar bear, sea turtle, foreign exchange, income tax, real estate, fossil fuel.(bold added)
  • On the other hand, there is support for the hyphen in the Chicago Manual of style, under the entry for adjective + noun
Repeatedly, I run across the principle that the hyphen is used only when it is required to avoid ambiguity. In this case, there really isn't any ambiguity. The notion that there was a "fuel phase-out" long ago in the Miocene is so absurd I don't think anyone will read "fossil fuel phase-out" as something that is fossilzed. So maybe I was wrong asserting that it is still a noun instead of a "compound adjective" but I still think we don't need the hyphen. The two grammar authorities seem to conflict, but the rule of thumb seems pretty clear. Finally, an obscure authority supports the general rule, saying If a compound adjective does not contain a past or present participle, if there is no chance of misreading it, or if the adjective contains a symbol ($,°C, %), no hyphen is necessary. (for example,) fossil fuel plant... (bold added). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The "open compound word" argument is compelling. Plus the hyphen just doesn't feel right in those cases (admittedly a gut feeling). — JFG talk 06:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, i.e. per WP:HYPHEN. User:Ebonelm and User:NewsAndEventsGuy make good points above but only for the use of "fossil fuel" as a compound noun. However, in the titles in question here, "fossil-fuel" is a compound modifier, Note the article reads: "Conventionally, and with the support of modern writing guides, compound modifiers that appear before a noun phrase must include a hyphen between each word, subject to certain exceptions." —  AjaxSmack  02:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – Though nom did a poor just of stating a rationale, AjaxSmack has explained the point correctly. Those who note that fossil fuel is an open compound, and more common than the hyphenated form, are missing the point of the context in these titles. Therefore, the oppose statements of Ebonelm, NewsAndEventsGuy, Dougmcdonell, and JFG should be discounted as unresponsive to the issue. Dicklyon (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, per my comments above. This may be a borderline case in terms of a possible trending usage shift, but the time-honoured grammatical rule is a better way to go than the arbitrary tastes of well-intentioned editors who have shown they do not really understand the principles of syntax that apply here. Bjenks (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per Bjenks. Tony (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Hyphenation of compound modifiers is standard English. This is not a fuel phase-out that is fossilized. But I also propose an alternative: Even if properly hyphenated, this is arguably a poor title anyway. "Phasing out of fossil fuels" would be clearer and less jargonistic. There are other possibilities, such as "Transition from fossil to cleaner fuels", etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Stll opposed; some of the support votes cite "the general rule" or "staandard English" without citation to a reference and without acknowledging that part of the general rule that links hyphenation to a need to avoid ambiguity. I've pointed this out before so those !votes are not responsive. Bjenks' views won support in later !votes and B did use cite a ref (thanks) however Bjenks also noted that the rule allows for no hyphen when there is no ambiugity, at lesat in some cases. AjaxSmack pointed to our article compound modifier as though it is controlling, and quoted part of that article that needs a Template:CN tag. Moreover Ajax omitted other language in that article which notes there are exceptions. One of the exceptions is "Major style guides advise consulting a dictionary to determine whether a compound adjective should be hyphenated; compounds entered as dictionary headwords are permanent compounds, and for these, the dictionary's hyphenation should be followed even when the compound adjective follows a noun.[2][3][4] Hyphens are unnecessary in other unambiguous, regularly used compound adjectives.[5]" I have already shown that the Merriam/Webster shows "fossil fuel" to be a dictitionary headword, and provided examples of style guides which actually list "fossil fuel" as an exception to the hyphenation rule. Why?????? Well, Bjenks opined that some of the titles in the list might be ambiguous. personally I don't see that. "Fossil fuel" isn't going to make anyone think we're talking fuel related things that were fossilized. It's in the dictionary, it's not ambiguous, some style guides list it as one of the exceptions and so THE GENERAL RULE says don't hyphenate it. Finally, I support the alternative "Phasing out of fossil fuels" suggested by SMcCandlish, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC) PS I learned a little graammar in the discussion. Thanks all.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Please think again, NAEG. "Fossil fuel" is fine as a noun. A "fossil-fuel exporter" takes the hyphen, THAT's the general rule. The notion of exceptions, of a trend to usage change (where they may be no chance of ambiguity) is NOT a rule. In a hundred years' time, it may well be so--that's what language is like. But it's not encyclopedic to flirt with potentially unclear phrases. On that other matter, I meant there was some potential ambiguity, say, if we were talking ironically about a 97-year-old (i.e., a 'dinosaur') fuel exporter! Anyway, if we prudently use the hyphens, there will be no ambiguity at all, and no need to switch to a differently worded heading.Bjenks (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't accept your assertion as to the the "general rule", Bjenks, sorry. Citation please! We've already discussed the ref you posted earlier, which explicitly allows for exceptions where there is no risk of ambiguity. With the references we have before us, our own article on compound modifiers nixes the hyphen for dictionary headwords, such as "fossil fuel", and the National Geographic style guide lists "fossil fuel" as an example in which a no-hyphen exception applies. I'm just not persuaded the super-silly example you've invented demonstrates a serious risk of ambiguity in these pages (even though it was amusing)NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, go to your own cited source, National Geographic. It says: "A compound adjective should be hyphenated before a noun (unless the compound itself carries a modifier)..." QED. Bjenks (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
When you read all of that reference, you find paragraph (1)m. I already quoted that earlier in this thread. But for convenience here it is again "Compound nouns appearing in Webster's and widely used do not need to be hyphenated when used as adjectives unless ambiguous. For example: polar bear, sea turtle, foreign exchange, income tax, real estate, fossil fuel."(bold added) "Fossil fuel" is certainly a dictionary headword and is a frequently used. No one has demonstrated any genuine ambiguity in any of these titles. Seems to me the general rule is "when it's already clear, don't muck with it". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
You're right, and that section accords with my comment above, citing New Oxford Style Manual, 2016. But it doesn't specify "fossil fuel", and Geographic is no more than an in-house style, not meant to be definitive". Also, non-US readers don't use Websters. Read on to para (1)o and let me know what you think of "natural-gas-fired power plants". I would guess that both "fossil fuel" and "natural gas" (as nouns) are both listed in Websters without a hyphen. Bjenks (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
You're introducing side issues (e.g., US vs non-US use of Websters). The issue is whether "fossil fuel" is ever ambiguous when used as a compound modifier of some sort. The answer is "no"... so it should not be hyphenated. But the rules are confusing, and the example you noticed in National Geo's paragraph (o) illustrates this. There, the writer's attention was focused on the presentation of the en dash, and they wrote "natural-gas–fired power plant" instead of "natural gas–fired power plant". We have no evidence they pondered whether to add a hyphen to "natural gas" (under their owe paragraph m) or just did so unconsciously, while they carefully showed us use of the en dash later in the phrase. The manual you are using is paywalled... its neither in my county library nor state college library system, online or hardbound. So its hard to accept it as 'definitive' when it doesn't even appear in my state's university library system. Can we stop mucking about with little side issues? If we can avoid the compound modifier syntax that will make our title and articles more clear even for the non-English speakers, who already have lots of strange rules to comprehend. Alternatively, show me how our "fossil fuel" modifiers are ambiguous and I'll change my mind. The third option is to leave them alone because mucking with already-clear writing is not an improvement.
On the side of "no hyphen", our article Compound modifier includes the following pullquotes in the reference section
  • "Hyphenation. Compound words take many forms. [...] The dictionary is an excellent guide for such decisions. [...] When a compound can be found in the dictionary, its usage is established and it is known as a permanent compound."[5]
  • "In general, Chicago prefers a spare hyphenation style: if no suitable example or analogy can be found either in this section or in the dictionary, hyphenate only if doing so will aid readability" [6]
  • "Permanent compound adjectives are usually written as they appear in the dictionary even when they follow the noun they modify" [7]
  • "Where no ambiguity could result, as in public welfare administration or graduate student housing, hyphenation is unnecessary" [8]
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree there's no significant room for ambiguity in this case, and in fact began my contributions with a caution to the proposer against pedantry. My newest source (New Oxford Style Manual, 2016)[9] isn't 'paywalled'—it's a 908-page reference book, and the most authoritative guide to English in the publishing industry. Oxford Dictionaries does have a separate online page on the issue.[10] I continue to support the subject move in principle while acknowledging that usage is trending to change, especially in the US.Bjenks (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that. FYI, WP:PAYWALL certainly applies, when I cant get the ref through the unified library catalog of my large state's university system. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose this request is a nonsense. The titles are fine as they are, and follow common usage. If there is a "grammatical rule" that suggests we should be inserting a hyphen (and I'm not even convinced on that point) then it is clearly not one which is generally followed in the vast marjority of reliable book and newspaper sources. [16] for just one example amongst many. This is pointless pedantry and does our readers no good whatsoever.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
    PS - having seen SMcCandlish's alternative proposal for the first of these entries, Phasing out of fossil fuels, I agree that is better than either of the other possible titles for that example. Clear and avoids the issue altogether.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Previous closer's comment This was previously closed by me with no action needed (check page history for result). One of the supporters and thus, INVOLVED editors here, Dicklyon reversed that close entirely on the grounds that I'm incapable of proper closes. As requested, I've not reinstated that close. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 08:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for trying. No doubt some will discount my gratitude since I was in opposition to the proposal, but what I'm saying is I appreciate your process efforts here, regardless of the result. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
See my comment on the attempted close at User_talk:QEDK#Reverted_your_close. Dicklyon (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, with preference to the alternative Phasing out of fossil fuels as proposed by SMcCandlish – The proposed hyphen is required if one wants to use this construction, just as has been stated above. If one wants a less awkward title, the solution is to write an alternative that has no hyphens, i.e. the one proposed above. RGloucester — ☎ 15:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I prefer the alt title too and am commenting that the "above" includes two points of view, one of which shows that the hyphen is not required. Ignoring one set of reasoning does not make your view stronger. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Since I've been asked specifically not to close this by another editor here (read closing comment above), I waive my rights to such (any other editor can still reinstate my close, on the basis they are UNINVOLVED and also take in all newly formed opinions) and since then, I've formulated a stance, which was basically also my closing statement. Ngrams and Google Trends already show that the current form is more popular, furthermore the suggested names are purely syntactic and do nothing to make the subject matter more clear or such, this implying that everything should remain as-is. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 17:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
    The hyphen-free form being "more popular" is not a very good critierion. The hyphen is used for clarity, to help the unfamiliar reader parse and understand a complex noun phrase. It is conventional in many fields to omit hyphens when the term is so familiar in the field that readers don't need it. But when writing for a general audience, such as in an encyclopedia, it's a good idea to keep in mind the needs of the readers that are least familiar with the topic area. We don't want them to think that we're call the fuels lobby a fossil. Dicklyon (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Ridiculous possibilities such as someone thinking we might be talking about a miocene-era political lobby isn't a very good criterion either. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not that there's an alternative interpretation that makes sense, just that the hyphen helps the reader see the correct interpretation more quickly. This is a completely conventional, normal, and widespread use of hyphen to help the reader, as 6 of us have pointed out. Dicklyon (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
If we follow our conventions, the number who say X is irrelevant. It's the reasoning that is supposed to determine the outcome. See WP:!Vote (with an exclamation point). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Popular is only one of the points I'm putting across. This syntactic proposal makes no sense - primarily because it suggests no improvement over the current one. You guys, are putting your own thoughts across, as if accounting for our readers. On one hand, we have numbers and figures and on the other hand, we have Freud and his philosophy. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 19:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Firstly, it should be Fossil fuels phase-out. I don't disagree with WP:SINGULAR, but this is too far, applying it to everything internal component of a title. There is one "phase out" that is the topic, but it involved multiple fossil fuels. Oppose because "fossil fuel" is a noun, a compound noun. "Fossil" is not an adjective of "fuel", the fuel is not a fossil, it is instead named after a concept related to its origin. A better title would be Phase out of fossil fuels, or Phasing out of fossil fuels. In a good title, the more important key words go first. This topic is awkward, it is a hypothetical concept, a conceptual proposal, noting that fossil fuels are in no way being phased out. Actually, I now read this article as a list, Proposals to phase out fossil fuel use or Proposals to phase out use of fossil fuels. Funnily, the topic is actually an agenda/proposal/idea to preserve fossil fuels. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Refs for this section

References

  1. ^ "GWEC Global Wind Statistics 2012" (PDF). Global Wind Energy Commission. Retrieved 18 February 2013.
  2. ^ "Worldwide Electricity Production From Renewable Energy Sources: Stats and Figures Series: Forteenth Inventory – Edition 2012" (PDF). 2.2 Electricity Production From Wind Sources: Main Wind Power Producing Countries – 2011 (text & table): Observ'ER. Retrieved 15 January 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  3. ^ a b Delucchi, Mark A. and Mark Z. Jacobson (2010). "Providing all Global Energy with Wind, Water, and Solar Power, Part II: Reliability, System and Transmission Costs, and Policies" (PDF). Energy policy.
  4. ^ a b Benjamin K. Sovacool. A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 2010, p. 387.
  5. ^ VandenBos, Gary R., ed. (2010). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). American Psychological Association. section 4.13. ISBN 1-4338-0559-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |separator=, |trans_title=, |trans_chapter=, |laysummary=, |chapterurl=, |month=, and |lastauthoramp= (help)
  6. ^ The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.). University of Chicago Press. 2010. section 7.85. ISBN 978-0-226-10420-1. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |separator=, |trans_title=, |trans_chapter=, |chapterurl=, |month=, |laysummary=, and |lastauthoramp= (help)
  7. ^ Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writers and Editors. Merriam Webster. 1998. p. 73. ISBN 978-0-87779-622-0. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |separator=, |trans_title=, |trans_chapter=, |month=, |laysummary=, |chapterurl=, and |lastauthoramp= (help)
  8. ^ The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.). University of Chicago Press. 2010. section 7.80. ISBN 978-0-226-10420-1. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |separator=, |trans_title=, |trans_chapter=, |chapterurl=, |month=, |laysummary=, and |lastauthoramp= (help)
  9. ^ OUP New Oxford Style Manual, 908pp, Oxford UK, 2016. ISBN 978–019–876725–1
  10. ^ Hyphen (-) at en.oxforddictionaries.com
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
  • I think the above contains evidence of (1) non-support of the status quo and (2) budding agreement on renaming to Phasing out of fossil fuels? Do others read differently? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I considered that option in closing the debate, but the consensus isn't quite clear yet, and this approach doesn't address what do with the other similarly-named pages. I would suggest opening a new request for that move, and only move one page at a time. Bradv 01:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it a good idea to have a preliminary discussion on a good proposed rename before formally proposing it. I think here is a good place for participants in the above to debrief briefly here. This is not the location for a new formal RM, that would go in a new section. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Switch to natural gas

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)

Trump fuel now 21st Century Fossil Fuel Regulations in the United States

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.&region=Footer&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&src=recg&pgtype=article [6] [7] [8] Hmthorner (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Brookings seems all speculation, liked Forbes & NY times is the best for specifics. Dougmcdonell (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! We now have the beginnings of a page called 21st Century Fossil Fuel Regulations in the United States that I think could be linked to this page Hmthorner (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

More references

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)

Proposal for clean-up of article

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)

Sounds good. Plazak (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
AmenNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Solar

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)

Not sure what "following paragraph" you mean but I deleted the 2 outdated paras you mentioned.Chidgk1 (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Why Trump's Promise to Save the Coal Industry Does More Damage Than Good". Time. Retrieved 2017-02-27.
  2. ^ Davenport, Coral (2017-02-17). "Senate Confirms Scott Pruitt as E.P.A. Head". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-02-27.
  3. ^ "These Companies Think Donald Trump Can Make Coal Great Again". Fortune. Retrieved 2017-02-27.
  4. ^ Krauss, Clifford; Corkery, Michael (2016-11-19). "A Bleak Outlook for Trump's Promises to Coal Miners". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-02-27.
  5. ^ "Thousands of emails detail EPA head's close ties to fossil fuel industry". Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-02-27.
  6. ^ Stavins, Robert N. "Addressing climate change with a comprehensive US cap-and-trade system." Oxford Review of Economic Policy 24.2 (2008): 298-321.
  7. ^ Kearney, Diane (March 23, 2010). "EIA's Outlook through 2035" (PDF). Surface Transportation Board. Retrieved February 26, 2017. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  8. ^ Greenberg, Michael (2009-08-01). "Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: Analysis of US national and site-specific data". Energy Policy. 37 (8): 3242–3249. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.04.020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fossil_fuel_phase-out/Archive_1&oldid=1136735668"