Below are some thoughts that were background on the version of Energy cat as of the datestamp on this note: --CurtB 21:34, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Energy[edit source]



BatteriesElectric lighting[2]Fuel cells
Grid intertieMicrocapicitors
Human power[3] Pedal power
Solar pumping • Solar vaccine refrigeration
Wave power • Wind power


Cookers Solar
Hydronic radiant heating
Insulation Strawbale • Fiber board • Fiberglass
Passive solar design • Refrigeration
Solar hotwater< • Thermal mass • Thermodynamics


Biodiesel • Biogas • Ethanol • Hydrogen

(Legacy categories)
Renewable energy


References[edit source]

  1. there's some inconsistency here. A mix between sources of energy and forms of energy. Sources may be: human, animal, wind, water, solar, etc. Forms might be mechanical, thermal, electrical, light, etc. We have human and wind under electrical, but windmills can be used for, yep, mills, or for pumping, with no electricity involved. Solution? A more complete subcategorization by energy form, or by source, or possibly both
  2. Highlights the categorization problem. Need a "lighting" section
  3. Subcategories may not be needed
  4. Category:Biofuel already exists...

Hey, all:

Forgive me, but I must be blunt. Some misguided focus has created many many details unsupported by some fundamentals. There needs to be topics on the 2 most sustainable sources of generating electrical energy: one is "Solar Energy", and the other is "Wind Energy". Subcategories for each should include at least 2: "Small Scale (Residential/Business)" and "Utility Scale". I had the editing skills, I would add them, but I still need to learn.

Pay attention to the basics.

David W. Potter Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

Hi David,
Thank you for your input. Right now these topics (Solar, Photovoltaics and Wind power) are under Renewable energy, but maybe they should just be listed under Energy, i.e. getting rid of the subcategory renewable and calling it all energy. What do you think?
Thanks, --Lonny 12:16, 8 August 2008 (PDT)

Hey, Lonny:

Thanks for the quick response! Your response immediately brings to mind for me how obsolete or ill-defined the terms "renewable" and "alternative" are. Both have become "Humpty Dumpty" words, used for whatever use the user intends--and without explanation--and with no knowledge by the user. Both nonetheless have applications, but which are much narrower than currently in place. "Renewable" applies to, for example, forests which take 50 years to be "renewed", and also Wind and Sun, which are at any instant the same as any other. Since Wind and Sun are dependent on Solar System and planetary astrophysics, they are essentially limitless, while forests can be obliterated, and if normal biological succession is prevented e.g., by agriculture or parking lots, the forests never "renew". Calling both "renewable" is truly trying to squeeze apples and oranges together.

"Alternative" was once applied to lifestyles, not energy, and should be returned to that field. To further discredit the term I read a blurb or ad slogan regarding residential sustainable energy, stating "'alternative' is now mainstream".

My admittedly rather extreme classification would be "Sustainable Energy", with Solar, Wind, Hydro, Tidal, and Geothermal as categories. My position is that nothing else meets the definition of sustainable. Not agrofuels, not nuclear--there is nothing sustainable about using yet more habitat for agrofuels, and there is not one single step in the nuclear process that is sustainable--fatal flaws for each, regardless of how many different ways they are packaged and marketed.

I would use the subcategories I mentioned originally for each of the 5 categories above. I guess those would be 3rd level taxa. All are reasonably possible technologies. As evidence, one of the marketing techniques of Big Carbon is to ignore and obscure residential sustainability, since its use hurts their bottom line. It is also the official attitude of many USA state legislatures--for the same reason.

Incidentally, "geothermal" applies only to geological heat deep in the crust used to create steam to power turbines. It does not apply to Earth-coupled or ground-coupled heatpumps. These terms and techniques are completely different. I don't know if this mistake is present here or not, so forgive me if the distinction has already been made--it is common elsewhere.

At the very least, I certainly agree with getting rid of "Renewable" and "Alternative". "Sustainable" and its forms then need to have a rigorous, defensible, unerodible definition. And, one day I will learn enough HTML to apply the organization and formatting, but for now, thanks for the opportunity!

David Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! 15:16 CDT 8 Aug 2008

forum on renewable energy[edit source]

Hello Appropedia. I'm entirely new to this site (and new to wikiposts in general), but I was wondering if there existed a forum or online community where I could post questions about renewable energy. This is for a research paper for school. I was hoping to connect with actual scientists and researchers in the field who work closely with peer-to-peer projects. I wanted to outline the basics of my paper (which includes a business model) and have these p2p researchers/scientists help fill in the gaps and find inconsistencies in my overall logic.

I hope this is the right place to post. if not, can one of you kindly point me in the right direction.

Thanx in advance,

-Austin (User:Buddhanoir)

Hi, Austin - thanks for asking.
check - some smart people there. I'll also ask one of the academics here. --Chriswaterguy 18:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Austin -- Check out Leonardo Energy --Joshua 19:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might want to post the outline on Appropedia so you can link to an editable and commentable version at those other sights. To do so you could post it under your userpage using a slash, such as User:Buddhanoir/Energy_outline. You will probably have to work just as hard building community input as writing the actual document. Good luck, I look forward to seeing the outcome. --Lonny 03:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.