Talk:Energy transition/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 20 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NShair1216.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

german energy imports from france

this sentence "The reduction of reliance on nuclear plants has had the consequence of increased reliance on fossil fuels and on electricity imports from France." is wrong. the opposite is true. it is an old myth that germany would need to import electricity after switching of nuclear power plants but that turned out to be wrong and fair mongering. right now germanys neighboring countries complain about to much german electricity exports and the german grid goes critically almost daily because of to much energy and not enough demand. never in history did germany export more electricity. http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article118645559/Deutschland-exportiert-so-viel-Strom-wie-nie-zuvor.html http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2013-09/stromproduktion-deutschland-ueberschuss-energiewende#comments

I'm going to change the sentence if nobody objects. but how you anyone. it's clear.

95.222.128.13 (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Example for 'energy conservation' is wrong (in introduction)

The article states "An example of an effective energy conservation measure is improved insulation for buildings" — this however remains an example of energy efficiency. An example of energy conservation would be to turn down the thermostat. My viewpoint is in agreement with the article on energy conservation and also with usage in the literature, for instance:

• Agora Energiewende (2014). Benefits of energy efficiency on the German power sector : summary of key findings from a study conducted by Prognos AG and IAEW (PDF). Berlin, Germany: Agora Energiewende.

I about to make the necessary changes. -- RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

conflicted article

This article gives only one motive for energy transition - global warming, this overlooks other motives like cost, availability, politics. Instead of presenting a balanced view on the actual transitions taking place or including non-renewable solutions to global warming, there seems to be two POV themes - one in favor of renewable energy and the other against nuclear energy. If global warming is really the topic here, these two POV's are on opposite sides of it, as of 2016 shutting down the 4.5% of nuclear would eliminate all the gains made by the 4.3% wind and solar. I would suggest that if the POV's are to be retained that the global warming topic be replaced by a section on green ideals. Or another alternative is to separate the conflicting topics and their intended purpose. Other ideas ?? Dougmcdonell (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)