Figure Numbering[edit source]
There seem to be some issues with figure numbering and consistency with in-text citations. Is there wiki code like the LaTeX \ref{figure_name} we could use?
Math Expressions[edit source]
It would appear as though the LaTeX code for rendering math expressions isn't working at the moment, although it apparently has been in the past.
Edits and comments by Jamason (James Robinson)[edit source]
Template for Feedback[edit source]
1. What is the most important strength of this document?
The emissions table for the components of a wind turbine is the most informative
2. What is the most important aspect to change?
The two main overall suggestions I have are: (1) elaborate and remember your audience, much of the public may have little background knowledge but is still interested and should be considered; and (2) Better placement of figures to all be on the right of the screen and have the text wrap them.
3. How could the navigation of the document be improved?
See number two above. The orientation of the figures and paragraphs jumps around a lot.
4. Do you have suggestions for improving the headings used in the document?
Yes, stay with the same capital structure. Either capitalize all the big words in the headings or only the first word, just be consistent.
5. Are there any topic sentences that should be improved?
Under “Manufacturing of all Components” and “Energy return on energy invested (EROI)” needs a topic sentence.
6. Do all figures have captions, figure numbers and are they referred to in the text?
No, make sure this is consistent. See the suggestions on the discussion page wiki.
7. Is there at least one reference per author? Are the references cited properly and do they use the format described here?
Clean up the display of the references if possible. It does seem well referenced. Also, include all the author’s names somewhere.
8. Are tables included as text whenever possible? (Appropedia can search text in tables – so Lonny prefers tables to be text rather than images). This page contains information on how to make tables https://www.appropedia.org/Help:Table_examples
Yes! The team did a really good job of this!
9. Should the document be shortened or lengthened? If so, what suggestions do you have.
Lengthened a little to be more specific for the less advanced reader.
10. Any other questions or comments for the authors?
Nice over all! See below for additional comments. There is some overlap.
Strengths of page[edit source]
Following are items I found particularly clear and beneficial to a reader's understanding of what is trying to be conveyed:
- Tying in the idea that an LCA is necessary for the comparison of renewable energy technologies.
- The table under "Emissions" is awesome. That is very helpful to understand implications of wind turbines. Especially impressive is the fact that you made this from scratch.
- I like the value given from the literature as 94% recyclable material.
- Nice conclusion! I like that you left the items to consider in the future or for some other editor to consider.
Suggestions for improvement[edit source]
In addition to items listed below, some specific references in the text say "(???JR - < >)" and should be addressed. Following are some suggestions for improvement:
- The flow chart figure under the introduction starting with "Resource Extraction" to "Turbine Product Disposal" is really good but should have a caption and justified right (not left).
- Be sure all figures have a caption with a number and reference them in the text. Especially the first flow chart figure should referenced instead of the sentence portion: "quantifies the cumulative embedded energy and resources in an item from production, transport, erection, operation, dismantling and removal of the item and associated items."
- The distinction between a wind mill and a turbine must be understood: a wind farm is a collection of turbines (conversion of rotary motion into energy used for useful work) which produce electricity. A wind mill, was the old style of mechanical work performed from harnessing the wind to mill (a factory process; or, the act of grinding into a powder) grains (no electricity was produced). Changing the title may not be necessary for the general public to understand but the parenthetical "(or mill)" in the second paragraph should be removed.
- Under "Types of Wind Farms" the word "materials" should be defined better between the last two sentences. I don't fully understand how glass, and copper significantly affect the LCA. What components of a wind turbine are glass? Copper for the wiring? Please elaborate.
- The next heading should be: "Production/Manufacturing" (not Manufacture). Make sure all headings are capitalized appropriately and consistently.
- The table under emissions has NMVOC, I know VOC=volatile organics but what is NM? Since this is viewed by the unaware public, everything whould be more clear when possible.
- Under efficiency where did the values come from to calculate eta? What time scale is this over? Lifetime, a year etc?
- Under "Recycling/Disposal" the % recycling conflicts with the section under "Manufacturing all components" where it has "New" in quotes. Remedy this discrepancy.
Edits and comments by James Apple[edit source]
1. What is the most important strength of this document? The document is well-organized and written in clear, non-technical language.
2. What is the most important aspect to change? All ideas should be based on research and cited appropriately. For example, why is it that some resources “must be ‘new’”?
3. How could the navigation of the document be improved? Navigation is generally good. Consider removing slashes from headings to make the headings easier to read.
4. Do you have suggestions for improving the headings used in the document? Avoid having only one subsection in a section (for example, sections 3.1 and 7.1). Add another subsection or remove the subheading.
5. Are there any topic sentences that should be improved? The Production/Manufacture topic sentence should be rewritten to reflect the paragraph more accurately. The topic sentence identifies three main parts of the tower, but the paragraph describes different phases of production.
6. Do all figures have captions, figure numbers and are they referred to in the text? Most figures are captioned correctly. Some figures (the LCA flow chart, the onshore wind farm, and the graph of total primary energy consumption) are missing figure numbers.
7. Is there at least one reference per author? Are the references cited properly and do they use the format described here? https://www.appropedia.org/Help:Footnotes There is one reference per author, and footnotes are hyperlinked correctly. However, links in the References section should be reformatted for easier reading.
8. Are tables included as text whenever possible? (Appropedia can search text in tables – so Lonny prefers tables to be text rather than images). This page contains information on how to make tables https://www.appropedia.org/Help:Table_examples Tables are included as text. Table 1 should include a caption and citation.
9. Should the document be shortened or lengthened? If so, what suggestions do you have. The document is a good length for the task.
10. Any other questions or comments for the authors? Remove comments such as “(???JR – elaborate)”. These belong in the discussion tab. Change “LCA analyses” to “LCA. The A in LCA stands for Analysis. The discussion regarding Figure 3 should include an explanation of which materials are used the most in wind turbines. The energy input per kg of material is less important than the energy input per kW of windmill capacity.