Talk:Energy conservation/Archive 1

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

Jevons paradox section

RE 15:57, 31 August 2005 JabberWok m (Deleted Jevon's paradox section. If there is real data that shows individual conservation efforts do more harm than good, put it here. Opinions should stay out of an encyclopedia.)

I think the Jevons paradox text is relevant here because it presents an alternative view of consumer conservation efforts. The text didn't indicate that Jevon's paradox was a documented statement of fact. Jonathan Kovaciny 17:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I actually came here looking for a reference to Jevons paradox. I think a short paragraph and a link to the article would be nice. More on the subject can, for example, be found in Does Energy Efficiency Save Energy. 80.128.239.232 19:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that, not only has all mention of the Jevons paradox been removed, there are no criticisms of any kind here. beefman (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Tips for consumers

I'm all for energy conservation, but a list intended to help consumers conserve energy is more appropriate for a WikiBooks how-to than an encyclopedia article. -- Beland 05:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I agree with you here, but I'm afraid that if this section is linked to rather than directly included, most readers will miss it, and I would imagine that the majority of people that come to this page are looking specifically for this information. Perhaps instead of just a simple link in the See Also or External Links section, there could be a short paragraph in the body of the article that discussed consumer conservation strategies, with a link to the Wikibooks article therein.Jonathan Kovaciny 15:07, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

There's lots of other energy conservation issues to be covered here, including links to various technologies and policy questions, and explaining basic concepts about energy efficiency. -- Beland 05:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you specifically list what you would like to see included, or actually write some of it?Jonathan Kovaciny 15:07, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
An article that has "Ten Energy Conservation Tip...buy compact fluorescent lights" wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia. But an article that said, "Compact fluorescent lights use 80% less electricty than standard yup.........(incandescent) lights" (with a reference) would be appropriate for Wikipedia. I'd be happy to contribute. My house uses 70% less energy than the utility says is average for comparable houses.--Tdkehoe 16:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
See here — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 21:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hybrid Car Discussion

The analysis of hybrid cars under "Net-loss conservation efforts" was completely bogus, so I changed it. Usually I do not delete statements I disagree with, but in this case one statement was so outlandish I cut it. It was:

"The financial savings of the gasoline saved over the life of the new vehicle will probably never exceed the added cost of the vehicle, which may mean the consumer spends more time at work paying for the added cost, consuming energy in the process."

This is wrong for two reasons:

1. Most people consume less energy at work than they do at home. Office lighting and HVAC is better than the average house, and cheaper measured per building occupant.

2. If you spend extra money on a car it usually means you offset that expense by spending less money on other items. Most people cannot increase their annual income by working longer hours because they are salaried, or because they do not have the opportunity to work overtime.

There were other absurd statements in this paragraph. I left them intact but amended in parenthesis:

". . . Significant energy, human labor, and material are involved in the development, manufacture, transportation, and marketing of the new vehicle, as well as the processing of the sale, licensing, and loan application."

This is wrong for several reasons I did not list in the article text:

1. Human labor adds no significant embodied energy to the vehicle.

2. Hybrid cars are made in the most modern up-to-date factories, which consume less energy than the older factories used to make conventional cars.

3. The material expenses (steel, plastic and so on) are the same for hybrid vehicles as for any other kind. If anything, hybrid cars may have less embodied energy because they are considerably lighter.

4. Auto makers devote billions of dollars of development expenses (and facilities and energy) to remodeling conventional vehicles every year.

As I did point out, the cost of processing, licensing and so on is exactly the same for a hybrid as for an ordinary car, so this would only be an issue if you sell your ordinary car before you purchase the hybrid car.

In my addition I stated that hybrid cars achieve at least 45 mpg. Actual mileage depends on the type of driving and the skill of the driver. This is my own observation as a Prius driver, and it has been reported in many discussion groups devoted to the car. Anyone can achieve 45 mpg; I usually reach 49 mpg in the city, and on small country roads traveling at 35 mph I can easily reach 70 mpg. The record is 110 mpg.

The only real issue here is fuel efficiency. Based on some simple statistics from the EIA Annual Energy Review (see reference in main article) it is easy to demonstrate that with gasoline at $2.50 per gallon, the Prius pays for itself in 4 or 5 years for the average driver. For a careful driver, or one who drives thousands of miles more than the average, it will pay for itself sooner.

I will grant, there has been some discussion in the trade magazines about whether the Toyota engine actually costs $3,000 extra. Some think it actually costs more, and Toyota is temporarily charging less of a premium. This discussion is probably moot, because production is ramping up quickly and most experts agree the extra cost of the engine will soon fall to less than $2,000. It does not require any expensive or rare materials, or unusually precise manufacturing techniques, and overall it is smaller and lighter than a conventional engine, so there is no reason why it should cost significantly more. The batteries do add some extra weight and expense.

- JedRothwell

From a financial standpoint, having a constant predictable cost is actually "cheaper" than a volatile but on average equal cost. "Payback Rule" calculations are frowned upon - if there were an average car ownership period, a Net Present Value or even Return on Investment calculation would be more appropriate. -somerandomguy

Um gee-whiz, Geo Metros got 50 to 65mpg (80 to 104kpg). So? Who is the car industry trying to fool? - Hard Raspy Sci 15:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm beating a seriously dead horse here, but I'll point out that this oft-quoted Geo Metro mileage applied only to the Geo Metro XFi, a model with a detuned 3-cyl engine and extra-lightweight and aerodynamic body. --IanOsgood (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I should add thats while running 55 to 75mph (88 to 120kph). - Hard Raspy Sci 15:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Raspy Sci writes "Geo Metros got 50 to 65mpg (80 to 104kpg)." This is incorrect. I own a 1994 Geo Metro and a 2005 Toyota Prius hybrid. The Geo Metro gets around 30 mpg city driving, and 35 mpg on the highway. See: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/13348.shtml
Furthermore, the Prius has many advantages over the Geo Metro. It is larger inside, with more passenger and cargo capacity. It is quieter and more comfortable. It is much more powerful and faster on the highway. It has airbags and other advanced safety features. Even with new tires, the Geo Metro will slip on a wet road as easily as a motorcycle or bicycle does, whereas the Prius is solid and it has advanced slip control, which cuts in when I drive it off-road through the mud. (This is not recommended, by the way. The car is not designed for off-road driving.)
I am a careful driver and I always stay within the speed limit, so I usually get the rated mileage. Prius mileage is sensitive to the driver's skill and environmental conditions such as temperature. Careless drivers may get only ~40 mpg in winter, over short trips. I have never gotten less than 45 mpg. Driving in the countryside in summer I can routinely achieve 70 mpg. The record for an unmodified Prius was set by a group of engineers last summer: 110 mpg for a full tank of gas. --JedRothwell 17:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I should add that a Geo Metro does not go 75 mph, except perhaps downhill with a stiff wind behind it. The speedometer registers up to 90 mph, but with the gas pedal fully depressed I have never exceeded 70 mph. The car has many merits, starting with the price ($9,000), but speed and safety are not among them. It is safer than a motorcycle. --JedRothwell 01:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Absolute ridiculous propaganda! Get your facts straight, JedRothwell is wrong. JedRothwell has quoted a 1997 Chevrolet Metro statistic. The Geo Metros did much better than the crappy excuse for automobile environmentalism--Prius! Additionally, if JedRothwell really does have a 1994 Metro, as claimed, its probably a complete rust bucket by now in need of a complete overhaul. So cut the garbage now, and give it up, you are wrong. And quit quoting the manufacturer rhetoric-word for word. - Hard Raspy Sci 05:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The real deal

See: 1992 Geo Metro

See: 1994 Geo Metro

- Hard Raspy Sci 05:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


The above reference claims fuel efficiency is ~50 mpg. That may be true of other model years, but my 1994 Geo Metro gets 35 mpg, and it always has. I test it every year or so. This reference is correct: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/10738.shtml. Also, the Geo Metro article here in Wikipedia says 35 mpg. (Actually, it says this was the mileage starting in 1995, and I got my car in late 1994, but I guess it was a '95 model.)

Some people report worse mileage than the EPA rating, but for the last 3 cars I have owned, performance has been spot on. Especially for a Volvo it was uncanny. For the Prius, I often get better mileage than the EPA rating.

Hard Raspy Sci wrote: "Additionally, if JedRothwell really does have a 1994 Metro, as claimed, its probably a complete rust bucket by now in need of a complete overhaul." Yes, I really have one. Would you like me to send you a photo? I could show it sitting behind the Prius. It is emphatically NOT a rust bucket. Any machine that I own will be in good condition. It has ~42,000 miles on it, a new clutch and good tires. It easily meets the annual Georgia clean air test. --JedRothwell 16:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite simply, the early model Metros, before Chevrolet, got really great mileage ratings. I owned a 1992 Metro when the speed limit barrier was removed by the US Fed. And I was always getting +50mpg going 70mph, consistantly and uh-hem legally. Also, about safety, I have seen Metros v. SUVs in crashes, where I might compare Metros to Mike Tyson, ie. the Metros really chewed up the SUVs in vehicle to vehicle wrecks. I think its more of a "feeling" of safety, not a reality when comparing the two vehicle types.
OK, OK, you don't have a rust bucket. I had more fun travelling places (very long distances) with the Metro than I did with any other vehicle I owned. Unfortunately, my family grew, and at the time I thought I should trade it off. (Expecting that Detroit would come out with more efficient cars--ooops wrong.)
About, EPA ratings, oh nevermind those ratings only annoy me. They are consistantly inconsistant. - Hard Raspy Sci 02:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I just read the Geo Metro article, and there is also one fact remaining--the Automatics got worse mileage ratings than the Manual Metros. I had a manual transmission. - Hard Raspy Sci 02:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The Metro is a fun car to drive! Noisy and bouncy, like something from the 1920s. I have a manual transmission too. It has always given 35 mpg in the city. I have never had a chance to measure highway performance, since I seldom drive it on the highway.

EPA ratings are confusing. But the methodology is described in detail at the EPA site, and frankly, it is hard to find fault with it. The method has to be repeatable, so it is bound to be unrealistic. For example, with the Prius I expect they start with a hot engine. That makes a huge difference. For the first 2 or 3 miles in the winter the Prius gets ~25 mpg, then suddenly it jumps up to 50 or 60 mpg. People who only drive short distances get lousy mileage, whereas people who drive 50 miles a day at 35 mph nonstop get fabulous mileage -- 70 mpg or better. But who does that? Nobody. (I did, once, on a photography tour of rural Maryland.) --JedRothwell 02:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Air content also plays a major role. High humidity regions like Georgia would cause a loss of a few mileage points, but shouldn't be more than ~10 mpg or so--and that would be for highway. - Hard Raspy Sci 03:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Trends in the U.S. Discussion

"Energy conservation" is such a broad term, this article will be limited to vague generalities unless the subject can be broken down a bit. Hence my introduction of the U.S. Dept. of Energy's "sectors", and discussion along those lines. - InNuce 19:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

good ideaAnlace 05:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Lighting energy data questioned

i have two points to make regarding lighting energy:

a. i question the unsourced data on percentage of energy consumed by lighting. the studies i have made or read suggest lighting energy is about double the numbers in this article for offices, retail and resiential use ....not industrial

The numbers in the Trends section came from the DOE links referenced at the end of the article ("U.S. Energy Statistics"). The lighting percentage seems reasonable to me. If you've seen much higher percentages listed elsewhere, I wonder if they were referring to lighting as a percentage of electricity usage, as opposed to total energy. InNuce 16:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

b. lighting is one of the few variables that has an instant "win". most of the other factors have to be worked hard at to achieve big gains...there are several strategies for lighting energy savings that need to be amplified here: improved architetural design, appropriate standards for illumination for each use area. (do you really think hotel hallways should be as bright as office work areas? intelligent architects do not, but a survey of buildings say we are)....do you know why many offices are illuminated all night? (answer: the janitors control the lights when no one is present and it is more "convenient" for the janitors to leave the lights on all night. this wasteful practice has been changed by many prudent building managers, who have decided to control the night lighting rationally...this is all not to mention the hardware available to reduce energy use Anlace 05:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Gas Stove statement

"While more energy-efficient, gas stoves release potentially carcinogenic combustion by-products into the building. Similarly cooking fumes come from all stoves. These significant sources of indoor air pollution tend to concentrate in buildings especially in energy conserving air sealed buildings."

Does this have any credibility?! The link is completely irrelevant. There is no evidence to support this claim and therefore I am removing it. Complete natural gas combustion does not emit carcinogenic by-products.

Gas stoves are the least efficient stoves. Only 40% of the energy that comes out of your gas pipe gets into your food. In contrast, standard resistance electric stoves are 48% efficient, electric halogen stoves are 58% efficient, and electric induction stoves are 90% efficient. These figures are from memory, I'd have to look for the source.--Tdkehoe 16:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


Yet the gas or oil to electricity conversion process is low efficiency, so gas stoves are far higher efficiency than electric stove plus electric power generation. Tabby (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tabby, 40% efficient for the gas stove is actually pretty efficient use of fuel. An absolutely spectacular power plant might be 60% efficient due to laws of thermodynamics, then you have transmission loss, and something well short of 50% of what was burned actually shows up at your house as electricity. -- Bdentremont (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Page focus - separate article for U.S.?

This page is almost entirely about the US situation on energy conservation. It seems to do a good job on that, but what about the rest of the world? Perhaps it would be better to rename the page to reflect its US-focus? Once title and content match, it makes for a good article. Regards, ImpuMozhi 02:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Instead of re-titling, I would rather see more countries (or at least regions) covered here, to keep the article global in scope. When I created the "US" section, my intent wasn't to make it a US-centered article - it's just the only country I felt qualified to write about. I was hoping folks from other parts of the world would add their perspectives.InNuce 05:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

...On second thought, maybe it's time to spin off the U.S. section into a separate Energy use and conservation in the U.S. article. New articles such as Energy use and conservation in the United Kingdom and Oil phase-out in Sweden show you can have a more focused discussion if you stick to one country. We could leave this article as a shorter, more general overview, something like this:

  1. Public policy (legislation, taxes/subsidies, PR campaigns)
  2. Technology
    1. Automobiles
    2. Lighting
    3. Appliances
    4. Industrial processes
  3. Issues with energy conservation
  4. See also
    1. Country-specific articles
    2. Conservation-related articles

Any opinions on this proposal? InNuce 21:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

An overall article on Energy Conservation is needed, so adding material from other areas is apropos. The US is the main energy hog (I'm American), so it's no wonder we have the most to gain.

Skyemoor 21:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I decided to start a new article, Energy use in the United States, focusing strictly on consumption patterns, and leaving the conservation discussion here. If the Energy conservation article gets unmanageably long sometime in the future, maybe we can move the US conservation stuff to this new article.InNuce 18:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Blog Link

Hello Editors,

I write a blog http://savingenergy.wordpress.com, which is entirely dedicated to energy conservation. I would like to add the link to my blog in the home energy conservation links section. What is the proper procedure to do that?

Comments appreciated in advance,

Thanks, Kgskgs (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't do it. That's not a reflection on your blog, it's just against Wikipedia policy to link to blogs. In this case I think such a link might be useful, but there are good reasons for restricting use of external links. Many articles get quickly out of hand when a lot of commercial interests and personal advocacy sites want to steer traffic their way. InNuce (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for asking before putting it in. Your blog looks great. Unfortunately, blogs are on the list of links normally to be avoided, with the exception of blogs written by someone otherwise notable. So you'd need to otherwise become notable before we could link from here. I'd encourage you, however, to contribute to this article and to other relevant articles, as stuff comes up and you find it missing from here. Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Transportation

It would be nice to have sources as to the "optimal" travel speed from an organization not created as propaganda for the 55 mph speed limit. But, I suppose they will have to do. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this statement to the talk page because the provided source does verify anything about "lowest speed in the highest gear", "optimal engine speeds," or "45-60 MPH."
Gasoline-powered cars operate with maximum efficiency at the lowest speed in the highest gear within optimal engine speeds, usually between 45-60 MPH. [1]
I don't doubt that there is a range where most gasoline-powered vehicles have optimal efficiency, but such a precise statement needs to be backed up by a reliable source, which I do not believe includes sites with a clear agenda like drive55.org.
Nova SS 02:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The fuel economy.gov site supports the statement that peak fuel economy is in the 45-55mph range (see graph at [2] , so I will rework the sentence accordingly. Skyemoor 10:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
That site does support the statement (although it looks more like 50-60 to me), but I'm not sure I consider it credible. It is a government site, but it was prepared to support the 55 mph speed limit, rather than to investigate it. Please consider reinserting it with the site named inline, rather than as a reference. Sorry about reverting, but neither your interpretation (looking at the graph) nor the site seem credible, so I probably would have done it even if I had seen this note first. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The site directly supports the statement. This was not prepared to support the 55 mph speed limit, unless you can prove otherwise. Submitting as a reference is perfectly acceptable. On top of that, your "United States Department of Transportation study" is not labelled with anything that remotely connects it with USDOT; the author is identified as Milton R. Copulos, president of the National Defense Council Foundation, so that doesn't belong in this article. Skyemoor 02:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It's in page 3. I'll see if I can reference the page number. Nova SS 03:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Heritage is an advocacy organization, so this reference with no letterhead is not credible on its own. See if you can find something better. And And this 'reference' you've provided has secondary references to completing claims by the DOT. So either both get mentioned, or the segment would to be removed anway.

Please explain the competing claim. Are you talking about the one stating that total energy savings is 1/2%? That is within the originally stated range of less than 1%.
I can provide a letterheaded link.
I will wait for your response before continuing.
Nova SS 13:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Your reference states that Dr. Eberhart believes that the 55 mph speed limit saved 70,0000 barrels of oil/day. Per your reference, the DOT calculated it to be up to 400,000 barrels of oil/day. Your reference is undated but appears to have been written in the 1980s. If we look at the US petroleum consumption in 1983 (15.2 mmbd), then that calculates out to be more than 2.5%. Furthermore, this reference you provide is not a primary document, but an untitled, non-letterheaded scan of a secondary document full of hearsay; in short, it is a wholly unsuitable reference. The references I provided, on the other hand, are directly from current Government websites. Skyemoor 22:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand your gripe. I'll see if I can find a less-interpreted source before reposting on this page. BTW, the proper form of the research is at [3] but somehow the text on that page is all garbled. Nova SS 02:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


Peak Efficient Speed Range

The chart clearly shows that peak efficiency falls within 45-55 mph, no matter how much that makes someone uncomfortable. Plus, the other reference shows that a vehicle achieves a 15% increase in fuel economy from 55mph to 65mph. That doesn't suddenly start happening after 60mph. Skyemoor 17:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You're dealing with a serial vandal from 70.134.*.*. He is trying to promote a particular POV on many topics. He's under investigation, although it isn't proceeding anywhere right now. Nova SS 17:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Jevons paradox

The Jevons paradox section contained this sentence:

For example, if 10% of a country's population reduces its use of gasoline, the price of gasoline may drop, and the remaining 90% of the population may use more gasoline as a result.

For Jevons' paradox to obtain, consumption after-the-fact must be greater than consumption before-the-fact. Ceteris paribus this example confuses demand with quantity demanded. If a share of the population reduces its demand, this shifts the entire curve inward; at the new price, some people may buy, but as their consumption moves towards the earlier level, price is driven up and consumption recedes. Ceteris non paribus, we might imagine that producers are moved by the drop to introduce changes in consumer technology, but these changes do not appear in the description.

For Jevons' paradox to obtain, the marginal bang-per-physical-unit of the commodity must improve as a result of technological change. In the case of gasoline, if I find that I can go farther on a gallon than before, I may choose to make more road-trips at-or-above the original price-per-gallon. —SlamDiego 18:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Energy Flow Trends - 2002

I just added U.S. Energy Flow Trends - 2002 to this article. I am not sure whether it belongs here or somewhere else, but I thought that it is a fascinating picture. It should be interesting to add some discussion about it in the text. Some unexpected observations from that flow diagram:
About 60% of all energy used is lost.
The worst offender is the electric power sector: Almost 70%(!) of all energy that goes into the electric power sector is lost
Coal accounts for about half of the energy used by the electric power sector
Total oil imports equals total use by the transportation sector
Actually, the transportation sector is even worse than the electric power sector: 80% of the energy used for transportation is lost
There must be some more interesting bits of information. No matter what, I think that this flow diagram gives some important clues of where to start if we want to reduce dependency on foreign oil, or reduce CO2 emissions.
btw: I do have some concerns as well: It was always my impression that improved insulation could have a major impact on residential energy use for both heating and air-conditioning; the flow diagram does not really show that. Anyway. some help/input in discussing this flow diagram would be appreciated JdH 00:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead Statement

Energy conservation is the practice of decreasing the quantity of energy used while achieving a similar outcome of end use. This is really a definition of 'energy efficiency'. Energy conservation merely refers to the reduction in energy use, such a not using an air conditioner on marginally warm day, riding a bike instead of driving a car, forgoing an airline flight, etc. I propose to stop the lead statement after 'used'. I welcome comments. --Skyemoor 16:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though perhaps with both concepts included. I'll try an edit.Ccrrccrr (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Energy efficiency trends in the United States

I suggest that this talk of "midgets with flamethrowers" is hard to follow in terms of what was actually intended and is not in the general style of wikipedia. Not being an expert on this topic, perhaps someone else can make constructive edits to fix this section? Jimad 20:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Issues with energy conservation

I've added an Original Research tag to this section, as there is quite a bit of unverified material there, especially the paras which start with...

For transportation the same financial payback versus energy savings argument can be made...
The Jevons paradox is an observation made...

The discussion seems very tentative and hypothetical and not encyclopedic. -- Johnfos 23:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Have removed the tag and the two offending paragraphs now -- Johnfos 00:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Worldview tag and Suggested Move

I added fat tags. The easiest way I see to solve the problem would be to move the article to Energy conservation in the United States, since 95% of the article is about it.--SidiLemine 12:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a better option might be to move the US section to a new article by the name you suggest and reference it in they same way that UK conservation is currently referenced. Naturally, this also seems to require the addition of other countries. (I assume Canada and Australia would be easy to add, for example. Perhaps the EU could be treated as a unit. Africa would definitely be an interesting addition.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)i like it.
Environmental technology template

I'd like to replace the Environmental technology template with one that matches the standard navbox style, i.e. horizontal instead of vertical, collapsing and typically placed at the bottom of article pages. I've done a mock up of what this would look like at {{User:Jwanders/ET}}. Figured this was a big enough change that I should post before going ahead with it. Please discuss here--jwandersTalk 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Reducing lighting

"Some believe lower overhead costs may allow retailers to lower prices, stimulating consumption"

I reworded this slightly to reflect that although some believe it, it is not generally accepted in the business world. And for good reason fwiw. Tabby (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced tag

I've added the unreferenced tag to the intro at the top of the page because it fails to cite sources to backup the advantages of energy conservation including that it increases "financial capital, environmental value, national security, personal security, and human comfort.", and the entire last paragraph. 59.100.1.222 (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Globalize

Just to note that I'm the one who added this. The rationale is fairly clear - almost all the content is on the US with a little on the UK. Richard001 (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fuel Economy infobox

In a related matter, does anyone think that fuel economy should be kept out of the automobile infoboxes? Please voice your opinion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_Automobile#Vote_on_Fuel_Economy_in_the_Infobox 198.151.13.8 (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Overall assessment

This article taken as a whole is so transparently biased, and so diligently advocates a particular view of energy conservation that it is useless to anyone seeking actually to *understand* the issues surrounding the subject. As one example, take, "Energy conservation may result in increase of financial capital, environmental value, national security, personal security, and human comfort" from the introductory paragraph. True. It is also true that energy conservation "may" cause a sharp rise in food prices, multi-billion dollar subsidies to corporate raparees (ala ADM) for energy-negative activities, people installing solar panels in Chicago, and freezing in the dark. I'm interested in building a (sensible) house in Northern New Hampshire, and would have appreciated at least some awareness of intellectual honesty in the article--I've not before seen so dishonest an article on Wikipedia. Is the author a shill for ADM? Or ADM directly? Sigh... I'll look elsewhere for useful information and data. Amccray (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please list sources which state that what you are suggesting is possible. Thank you. NJGW (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
If I list sources (on this talk page) will you edit the article accordingly? beefman (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

conservation vs. efficiency

There are two different ideas about what "conservation" means. One is any method of reducing energy use, including reducing consumption of energy services, improving efficiency, or both. The other is that is is mutually exclusive to efficiency, and includes only reduction of consumption of energy services. This article takes the stance that "conservation" is the broad category. I think there is room for having a discussion of the fact that the term is sometimes used in the narrow sense, exclusive of efficiency, in the article. But I just reverted a newly added paragraph that presented that meaning as the one correct usage. 129.170.66.178 (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

first paragraph

Added a period following 'human comfort' as there was one missing somehow. Greenopedia (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenopedia (talk • contribs) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


Ecodark deletion

I have deleted the insetion of the Ecodark blurb based on WP:SPAM: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." --Susfele (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge energy conservation measure

Energy conservation measure is just any measure taken to conserve energy. The distinction between that and energy conservation appears to be linguistic, rather than in content. I think it should be merged into energy conservation. Zodon (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Add External link article "How You Can Save Energy"

I'm considering adding a External link to: http://hotwaterlobster.com/blog/2010/12/27/how-you-can-save-energy/ . What are your thoughts? Valaprise (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Blogs are generally not appropriate to link to, per our external links guidelines. ThemFromSpace 23:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Energy conservation tips removal

Why was the "Energy conservation tips" section removed? It was not spam and I beleive it met all the proper critera (including references) and was valuable information regarding "Energy conservation". Valaprise (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't appropriate material for an encyclopedia article. See WP:NOTGUIDE. ThemFromSpace 22:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

When most people including myself viewed "Energy conservation" in Wikipedia encyclopedia, "Energy conservation tips" is exactly the type of information I was hoping to find. I checked “WP:NOTGUIDE” and did not find any discrepancies. Please tell me which specific section of WP:NOTGUIDE you are relying on, so I may more carefully scrutinize it. Thank you. Valaprise (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be the first section. On top of that, the link that you have been referencing is the same link that you've been spamming. Please see WP:RS for what is a reliable source and WP:EL for what is an appropriate external link. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 20:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Jevon's paradox

I've removed the paragraph on the Jevon's paradox as being off-topic since it didn't actually mention "energy conservation".

The Jevon's Paradox is discussed in many places on WP, see [4]. If it is to be discussed here too it needs to address the issue of energy conservation not just energy efficiency, which is already covered elsewhere. Johnfos (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Potential

added in this section:

According to a research conducted by Julian Allwood of the University of Cambridge, global energy use could be reduced by 73%, using only simple existing technology.[1] This research thus gives an insight into the potential of energy conservation.

perhaps that the section (perhaps modified) could be integrated in other articles aswell. 91.182.50.158 (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Energy conservation. 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 10:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Energy conservation. 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 17:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to remove material on and examples of energy efficiency

The lead to this page makes it clear that energy conservation and energy efficiency are distinct concepts. Yet the remainder of page gives few examples of conservation and many examples of efficiency. This latter material is not appropriate here and should be removed. What do people think? RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Energy conservation. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Energy conservation. 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) 16:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Energy conservation. 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) 12:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Fire free top up

Ggddbmkkkkkk 2401:4900:614F:9E5D:0:0:422:7ACE (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

incorrect citations

There are incorrect citations on this page. In particular, the link for citation #67 is incorrect. The statement is about dishwashers, but the link is to shower heads.

Additionally, in my opinion, the information about Trump's policies does not belong on this page. It is anti-energy conservation, which is fine. But then it should be on an anti-energy conservation page, or clearly marked as being against energy conservation and energy efficiency rather than for it.01:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Katyjanda (talk)ecocharlie

figure outdated

The Figure for the US is almost 20 years old. It is from 2002. Lawrence Livermore has a version on its website that is from 2020.

File:Energy us

https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/energy/us/Energy_US_2020.png (sorry, I cannot figure out how to upload the correct chart.)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/energy/us/Energy_US_2020.pngKatyjanda (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Adburges.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Science

What is energy conservation 49.148.112.206 (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ Possible global energy reducstion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Energy_conservation/Archive_1&oldid=1121954880"