Talk:Sustainable energy

Harv errors

Any clue where the National Academy of Sciences, 2019 and World Health Organization, 2016 references are supposed to point to? -- Reconrabbit 15:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I've restored the sources from the FA version. Seems to have been accidentally changed in a December citation cleanup. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hydropower section

Regarding a recent addition to the Hydropower section, it seems to have both some good new information and some overlap with existing content. The sourcing looks great! I've requested a copy of the source chapter from our friends at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request and will try to smooth it out. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I got the relevant source chapters and I'm afraid the source is very strange. It's published by Elsevier which is among the most trusted publishers in the world, but it makes major errors such as claiming that global warming is caused by depletion of the ozone layer (p. 407). Regarding hydropower specifically, it claims that "the water bodies and all its species are destroyed during the development of a hydropower scheme" (p. 462) which is obviously false since many microbial species do just fine. I will remove the content that cites this source. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Firrick, this is a featured-class article, assessed to be a very high level of quality. There may not be many improvements to it visible to a newer editor like yourself, and any changes are likely to be scrutinized. You may wish to select a different article for the assignment.

@Brianda (Wiki Ed), it would be great if the Wiki Education dashboard warned people who select FAs for course assignments. Sdkb ^talk 06:56, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Sdkb Thanks for the ping! The dashboard sends out a warning email to student editors that select FA or GA articles persuading them to change topics. The actual follow through to change topics might take a bit longer... In any case, feel free to give me or Ian (Wiki Ed) a quick ping to address these concerns. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENG 1320 College Writing II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 21 January 2026 and 13 May 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tip28 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Tip28 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Nuclear fission?

I am a bit confused about this recent edit with the edit summary: "Changed "Nuclear Power" to "Nuclear Fission" to differentiate from "thermonuclear" or "fusion" which does not have the drawbacks of fission". The rest of the article mentions nuclear power a number of times (but not fission). Do we really need to introduce the term nuclear fission and its wikiklink to the readers in the lead? I find it a bit confusing and inconsistent with the rest of the main text.

I see in the nuclear power article's lead that "Nuclear power can be obtained from nuclear fission, nuclear decay and nuclear fusion reactions". And "Nuclear power plants are thermal power stations that generate electricity by using the thermal energy released from nuclear fission." So is it a case of nuclear fission being the technically correct term, but nuclear power being the term that layperson readers know and understand? EMsmile (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

The word nuclear power is the standard one in the literature, not nuclear fission. Nuclear fusion is still so early days it should not get a mention yet, even implicitly. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 09:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Right, so I have removed the mention of the term fission now. Details regarding fission or fusion can be found in the nuclear power articles. EMsmile (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

External links section

Since this is a FA, I'm a bit hesitant to make bold edits, but can the external links section be removed? It is empty. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Given there are no external links, please go ahead if you know where to place the recording In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 19:47, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I've removed the heading. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:57, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Your revert of Sustainable energy

Copied from my User Talk Page:

I notice you have removed the Citation needed template from the Sustainable energy article.

I appreciate that this was part of a larger revert, but that doesn't seem to justify it, nor does your edit summary not sure why a bot would make the decision to question a statement of common knowledge make any sense. This particular edit was not made by a bot, and the claim I tagged is not common knowledge, but is controversial.

We all make mistakes... do you mind if I reinstate the Citation needed tag that you have removed, or is there something that I am myself missing? Andrewa (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Sorry, I only saw the bot's edit; I didn't notice your preceding edit. I think the lead's sentence that you criticize is practically the definition of Carbon capture and storage. For example, the subsection Sustainable_energy#Non-renewable_energy_sources has two references that support the lead's definition: https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.esr.2018.08.003 and https://www.iea.org/articles/zero-emission-carbon-capture-and-storage-in-power-plants-using-higher-capture-rates. If you disagree with the exact wording in the lead, then it seems best to alter the wording rather than ask for a source. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry the following is long, but your reply above doesn't seem to address the issue at all.

This edit by yourself removed the Citation needed tag with the edit summary not sure why a bot would make the decision to question a statement of common knowledge. I'm not a bot, and I was not questioning the statement. I was pointing out that it was not supported by an inline reference.

You seem to agree that your edit was at least partly in error. I would add, your edit summary that I quote above is confused and confusing, in my opinion.

The unsupported claim I flagged could be simply removed, but I don't think that's the best way of improving Wikipedia. It's controversial and I think it's a common and important claim, so rather than risk an edit war which would at best risk removing good material I flagged the unsourced statement. Whether the claim is true, and whether other references in the article support it, are not at issue. It requires an inline reference, and if one isn't provided it can and should be simply removed.

But far better for an inline reference to be provided. That's what the tag is for. And then the tag can and should be removed.

In view of this, I'm asking you whether you object to my reinstating the tag. I would prefer that you reinstated it, as I think you should, as you have provided no justification for removing it. It seems to me that you simply made a mistake by removing it (among others that you have recognised). But if you agree to its reinstatement, I'm happy to clean up after you by doing that, and we can both move on.

On the other hand, if you think the tag was misplaced, I think you need to provide a better explanation than saying that the statement is common knowledge or that citations later in the article support it. There is a well-established method of labelling references so that one can be used as a citation for multiple statements, see WP:CITENAME. Assuming that you are correct about these later references, that's the obvious thing to do here. A good solution is to attract a wikignome or similar editor who is familiar with WP:CITENAME and eager to put this expertise into practice.

The Citation needed tag gives these other editors a heads-up that this work is needed. That's why it was there, and why it should be reinstated. Andrewa (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Wikipedia:When_to_cite#Citations_in_leads says that the lead merely summarizes what is already in the article body, and need not have specific citations for non-controversial content. The two sources I provided above are among those that demonstrate the accuracy and non-controversial nature of the sentence you question. Substantively, the questioned sentence doesn't seem to wander from the basic definition of CCS as used in any source I've ever seen, which is why I said it's common knowledge. If you disagree with the basic definition, that's for discussion on the article's Talk Page. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

You say need not have specific citations for non-controversial content. Correct. But the claim that Carbon capture and storage can be built into power plants to remove their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is controversial, and so should be supported by a reference or removed. That's the whole point here. Andrewa (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Exact issue was distinguished here. Issue was deemed "resolved", by you, almost two weeks ago. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:19, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

In fact, I'm copying this discussion to the Talk Page so others can weigh in. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Andrewa! Thanks for helping out here. RCraig09 is right that repeating citations in the lead is optional. It's supposed to be a summary. I believe the text has changed to say "reduce" rather than the misleading implications that it can remove so the co2. Does that resolve your initial objection? The sentence now is uncontroversial imo In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 19:17, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCITE currently says that whether to include citations in the lead should be determined by consensus on a case-by-case basis. IIRC we discussed having citations in the lead for this article and agreed we shouldn't cite everything in the lead. However, when someone tags a sentence as needing a citation, I take that as an indication that there is no consensus to leave that particular claim uncited. I think it would have been better to discuss rather than removing the tag. In terms of moving forward for this case, I've softened the claim and added a ref. Does this resolve things for everyone? Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:31, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

CCS in power plants

(Copied from Talk:RCraig09 in chronological order here) But the whole point is, this is not non-controversial content. Andrewa (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Please continue any discussion here, not on my User Talk Page. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

The idea of using CCS in power plants is controversial. If we're not getting across that it's controversial, we should solve that problem. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:36, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Happy to do that. Please link here from your talk page so as to enable anyone else interested to see the ongoing discussion. Andrewa (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I asked above, "Does this resolve things for everyone?" Thoughts? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:33, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Distinguish: The present issue is not (A) whether using CCS is controversial; the present issue is (B) whether this lead's definitional sentence is controversial content in Wikipedia.
— Clayoquot's recent change is an improvement re the definition (B). However, the new footnote re CCS is the lead's only footnote (!) after the two that describe the lead sentence—and thus casts undue suspicion on a basic, non-controversial definition. I won't remove the footnote though I definitely find it unnecessary in the lead.
— Whether using CCS is controversial (A) is a completely different issue and should be resolved separately through ordinary editing. CCS's supposed controversiality isn't very notable here, given the fact that it's rarely implemented.
— If there's something controversial about the definitional sentence (B), then you User:Andrewa should describe exactly what is controversial about the sentence. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Resolved

See this diff and note that the old wording can be built into power plants to remove has now become could be built into power plants to reduce, a significantly weaker claim in my opinion, and more important, it is now supported by a reference. That last point was of course the reason I tagged the article. So despite the angst, the eventual teamwork has produced a good result. Perhaps some appropriately invlolved editor will see fit to trout for the out-of-process removal of the tag, and I hope we can all have a good laugh at the best rant I have ever seen in an edit summary, see .

But just to sum up, the tag was placed in order to seek a specific and IMO important improvement to the article, and that has IMO been achieved. Andrewa (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

In closing: As I already explained, my 16-word (supposed) "rant" came because I thought the AnomieBOT added the unnecessary {{fact}} template. We have yet to hear how even the earlier text was "controversial" enough to warrant a lead footnote rather than a simple edit. But bottomline, I acquiesce in the current version's sentence despite the unnecessary footnote. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The current article (see your permalink above) does address the concern I raised, as I said above (see the section heading). Yes, your "rant" was based on a mistake on your part. One of several. Your opinion that the {{fact}} template was unnecessary is in my opinion contradicted by the fact that the article has been improved as a result, and that the improvement corresponds to the exact purpose of the template.

So the template achieved exactly the result it was designed to achieve. Its removal was still out of process in my opinion, but we move on.

The article still says in Wikipedia's voice Renewable energy sources such as wind, hydro, solar, and geothermal energy can cause environmental damage but are generally far more sustainable than fossil fuel sources with no reference. I strongly agree that they are generally far more sustainable than fossil fuel sources, as in my opinion is nuclear... generally far more sustainable than fossil fuel sources is not a very strong statement, to the point that it at least borders on weasel especially when unreferenced. The far in generally far more sustainable seems to be rhetoric to me. I'd even say that generally far is a rather revealing conflation, perhaps an excellent example of an unintentional oxymoron, but interested in your view on that.

But definite progress, hence the heading . And thanks for the wall of text edit summary , I think it will be the source of much amusement in the future. Andrewa (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2026 (UTC)