Wikipedia:Peer review/Geothermal power/archive1

Geothermal power

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm getting too familiar with it to honestly recognize its flaws. I would like an outside opinion as to what areas are in greatest need of attention. This article is considered vital to Wikipedia 1.0 and of high importance to the Energy WikiProject.

Thanks, Yannick (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

It's informative and nothing massively wrong with it.

The article doesn't sufficiently explain why the geothermal heat pump is an important technology and how geothermal with heat pump differs from geothermal without heat pump. Geothermal heat pump systems are a popular addition to ecological new builds. Do they count as "direct application"? Should there be more on this, perhaps sourced to books and articles on "green" building?

Yes, they are a direct application. I can see how they deserve a bit more article space given their exponential growth rate, but I'm shy about discussing things just because they're popular. They only produce 1/6th of geothermal energy, assuming that parasitic loads have been properly accounted in the figures I reported. (I have my suspicions, but no verifiable source.) I'll see what I can do.--Yannick (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow heading capitalisation guidelines in MoS.

Done.--Yannick (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the drawing labelled "Enhanced geothermal system" the labels are too small for the drawing to be readable.

And by "too small," I'm guessing you mean "in german." It's a nice picture that we just need to relabel. I'm not good at picture editing though, so I'm hoping for someone with the right skills to come along...--Yannick (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lede should be a concise summary of the article and not introduce points that are not followed up later.

Very good point; I'll have to fix that.--Yannick (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Itsmejudith (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update and expansion needed

The thing that stands out for me is that much of info, statistics about geothermal use in particular, are not up to date. Very little info from 2008 or 2009, much from 2004 and 2005. Johnfos (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that's a realistic expectation. I don't think anyone collects these statistics on an annual basis, and there are always going to be delays on the order of years before this kind of data is collected into central locations, analyzed and published. The Geo-Heat Centre appears to be trying to publish comprehensive statistics every 5 years, so we can hope for a major update around 2010. But doing any better than that would require original research, which is not Wikipedia's mission.--Yannick (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things are moving very quickly with renewable energy. More recent info about geothermal is often available and should be used. Here is some info from a 2009 report:

"Geothermal power capacity reached over 10 GW in 2008. The United States remains the world development leader, with more than 120 projects under development in early 2009, representing at least 5 GW. Other countries with significant recent growth in geothermal include Australia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Iceland, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, and Turkey. Geothermal development was under way in over 40 countries, with at least 3 GW in the pipeline beyond the United States". (p.12)

"Geothermal (ground source) heat pumps accounted for an estimated 30 GWth of installed capacity by the end of 2008, with other direct uses of geothermal heat (i.e., for space and greenhouse heating, agricultural drying, industrial, and other uses) reaching an estimated 15 GWth. At least 76 countries use direct geothermal energy in some form". (p.13)

See also Tables on pages 23 and 24. -- Johnfos (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also endnote 10 of that document: "There are no annual published sources giving geothermal capacity worldwide; see the Renewables 2007 Global Status Report for previous geothermal sources, supplemented with unpublished submissions from report contributors." From endnote 6, it looks like they're citing the same academic paper as I am, Bertani's "World Geothermal Generation in 2007" plus a 2009 web page. You'll also notice that most of their numbers are qualified with the word "estimated" which suggests to me that they're just extrapolating based on recent growth rates. I'm not sure this source reliable enough for a technical article.--Yannick (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who says this is a "technical article"? It is not just about "geothermal capacity". The article should cover all major aspects of geothermal power and its use.

I'm sensing a tremendous reluctance to update and expand this article. The report cited is by REN21 and Eric Martinot, both of which have done much work in the area and have a good reputation. A paper based on the report was published here. It is just one example of more up-to-date info. I expect there is much else available.

Please take some time to dig some of it out and you will end up with more recent sources and a much better article. Until this is done the article should have an update tag to alert readers and other editors. Johnfos (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make this personal. If you check the edit history and statistics on this article, you'll find I am normally enthusiastic about updating and expanding this article; it's just that I have specific objections in this case. I'm actively looking for constructive criticism, and I appreciate that you have taken the time to review the article and provide comments. I had seen that REN21 report before you pointed it out, and I recognized two of the lead researchers, John Lund and Ruggero Bertani, as known experts in geothermal power. (According to Eric Martinot's Wikipedia entry, he is best known for authoring these REN21 reports, not particularly for geothermal research.) However, I chose not to use the REN21 capacity figures because they appear to be extrapolated estimates. I think that it's better to give our readers the most accurate data available, even if it's a few years old, and let them make their own extrapolations if they wish. I have spent many evenings reading through journal articles to find the most reliable data out there, and I don't think I can do better until new data comes out. I will take a look at this new paper you just pointed out. You say this is not just about "geothermal capacity." I'm not sure what you mean by that. The information you quoted above is mostly about capacity figures, as is most of the REN21 report. Could you be more specific as to what else needs to be updated?--Yannick (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you have put a lot of effort into this article, and it must be difficult to have someone come along with some other ideas. So thanks for asking for more info.

I don't see the information that I quoted as being "mostly about capacity figures". I think it is broader than that, dealing with geothermal development (often in different countries), which is a topic which needs to be expanded in this WP article.

Here is a specific statement made in the article, which is unsourced:

"As of 2004, five countries (El Salvador, Kenya, the Philippines, Iceland, and Costa Rica) generate more than 15% of their electricity from geothermal sources."

Wouldn't it be better to use some sourced, more up-to-date info, along the lines of what follows below, which is from a 2009 book by Lester Brown:

"Half the world's existing generating capacity is in the United States and the Philippines. Mexico, Indonesia, Italy and Japan account for most of the remainder. Altogether some 24 countries now convert geothermal energy into in electricity. Iceland, the Philippines, and El Salvador respectively get 27, 26 and 23 per cent of their electricity from geothermal power plants". (p.125)

There is much other useful info that Brown provides, from page 125 to 128, which could be used to update and expand the article. Johnfos (talk) 04:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better sourcing needed

I just looked at the last paper you pointed out, and I am not satisfied with it. It is just a magazine article summarizing the REN21 report; I don't think it indicates any additional fact-checking.--Yannick (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with the article or the REN21 report. Neither are refereed journal articles, but they don't need to be. If you are going to get picky about sourcing please take a good look at this WP article, as (unfortunately) there is much unsourced material. I suggest that all the unsourced material be sourced or removed. There is also some poorly sourced material such as [1]. Johnfos (talk) 04:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes there are whole paragraphs which are unsourced, so I have added inline cn tags to these. Johnfos (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding comment from Johnfos

I have suggested that there is considerable material in this article which needs to be better sourced, updated, or expanded. Some specific sources and possible content which could be used have been suggested. I've also added some tags, which should provide guidance. Johnfos (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responses from Yannick

Johnfos, I hope that writing a concluding comment doesn't mean that you are abandoning the conversation. If you're tired of this debate and want to leave it to me, that's OK, but I was hoping to better understand your concerns and work towards consensus. To that end, I'd like to respond to your latest points one at a time, breaking them out into separate threads in case discussion continues:

Johnfos made an oblique statement about the need for more coverage of geothermal development in different countries.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, and I hope I haven't corrupted your meaning in my paraphrase. Please accept my apologies if I am misrepresenting you. But it may help to discuss how the international scope of the article should be presented. When I first started working on the article, it had separate sections for each country. With 76 countries using geothermal power, it seemed to me that a general audience would not be interested in going through them all. They would just want the global summaries and highlights, and then maybe check out their own country plus one or two more. Therefore I've been trying to break out country-specific information to national articles accessible through the navbar at the bottom. Is that maybe what you're looking for? Do you disagree with this organization?--Yannick (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnfos says that some statements are unsourced, and holds as a particular example the following sentence: "As of 2004, five countries (El Salvador, Kenya, the Philippines, Iceland, and Costa Rica) generate more than 15% of their electricity from geothermal sources."

This sentence is actually strongly supported by Friedliefsson et al, which is already footnoted 9 times in the article. It's true that this particular sentence (and paragraph) did not have a footnote, but it normally isn't necessary to repeat citations so often. Still, it's true that the article has a number of footnote issues, and statistics should be footnoted. So thanks for making your comment specific, and I'll work on fixing this and other footnote problems.--Yannick (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnfos proposes alternate statistics from a more recently published book by Lester Brown: "Half the world's existing generating capacity is in the United States and the Philippines. Mexico, Indonesia, Italy and Japan account for most of the remainder. Altogether some 24 countries now convert geothermal energy into in electricity. Iceland, the Philippines, and El Salvador respectively get 27, 26 and 23 per cent of their electricity from geothermal power plants"

This quote does not contradict anything in the article, which is not really surprising if you notice that Brown is citing the same sources as I am: primarily Friedliefsson et al's IPCC paper and Bertani's "World Geothermal Generation in 2007." Those papers were reporting 2004 data, so Brown's book is no more up to date than the Wikipedia article; it just doesn't mention the age of the data. Brown's book does have additional information and great citations which may be helpful, and I thank Johnfos for pointing out this book to me. But I'd like to point out that the geothermal power article is already very laden with statistics, and it may be more appropriate to incorporate this information in subpages like geothermal electricity, geothermal heating, or the country specific pages.--Yannick (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnfos says there is nothing wrong with the REN21 report or the magazine article that summarizes it. They do not need to be refereed journal articles.

True, I was probably a little too dismissive at first. I actually think there's some good information in there about government policies, which I was thinking of incorporating; policy is REN21's expertise, after all. But what I'm saying is that we have more reliable sources available when it comes to capacity or production statistics, and even REN21 is citing those more reliable sources. Why not get as close as we can to the point of origin of the data? Just because the REN21 report or Brown's book were published more recently does not make the data any more recent. Everyone is using the same dataset from the Geo-Heat Centre. Again, I point out that REN21 wrote: "There are no annual published sources giving geothermal capacity worldwide."

Johnfos points out that there is poorly sourced material in the article, and holds the citation to a Calpine investor profile as an example.

Yup, I don't like that one either. Another editor felt that the Geyser scale and ownership was important to the article, and I tried to accommodate him. This is the best up-to-date source I've found for that to date. But questionable sources are sometimes the best we can do. Thanks for the comment.--Yannick (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnfos says: "Sometimes there are whole paragraphs which are unsourced, so I have added inline cn tags to these."

This I have a problem with. May I suggest that "challenges should not be made frivolously or casually, and should never be made to be disruptive or to make a point. Editors making a challenge should have reason to believe the material is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate." (Wikipedia talk:When to cite) I agree that the citations need improvement, but please don't create unnecessary work.--Yannick (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]