Jump to content

Talk:Wind power

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleWind power was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 10, 2013Good article nomineeListed
November 10, 2021Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

No legitimate source for the claim that Hammurabi had a plan to use wind power

[edit]

I was interested in the information that Hammurabi might have used wind power and tried to find more details only to discover that every reference I found about this (on Wikipedia or otherwise) ultimately cites the 1976 book The Generation of electricity by wind power by E. Golding which has a single throwaway line about it and which itself only cites The Story of the Rotor by Anton Flettner from 1926, which has a single throwaway line with no source whatsoever.

the Golding book: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Generation_of_Electricity_by_Wind_Po/lRojAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Hammurabi

the Flettner book: https://books.google.com/books?id=W99NAAAAMAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&vq=hammurabi&dq=flettner%20the%20story%20of%20the%20rotor&pg=PA95#v=snippet&q=hammurabi&f=false

I have only just created an account to post this and can't edit the page myself since it's protected, but it seems to me that this information has no real source and should be removed? If so can someone with access remove it? Minovi (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Materialscientist#Request to lower protection on wind power Chidgk1 (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Economics and policy sections seem incomplete

[edit]

In the current version, the 'Economics' section is very limited. It mentions costs but fails to mention the value of the electricity generated by wind power plant. I suggest adding a few sentences and linking to the 'Merit Order' page, which describes the value problem of variable renewable energy in detail.

Likewise, the content of the 'Central Government' subsection under 'Politics' is very limited and I also found it misleading. The references are almost exclusively referring to offshore wind. The first sentence seem to indicate that new installations are "generally subsidy free", but I believe this refer to offshore wind power only. I suggest rewriting this section completely, shift focus to both onshore and offshore wind power, and broaden the geographical scope. Tove-88 (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Materialscientist#Request to lower protection on wind power Chidgk1 (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Subsidies for new wind power projects

[edit]

I read your article and felt you gave a pass to wind power companies. How much of the up front costs does there need to be for new projects to be built? Is any of the up front money repaid. How are contracts awarded? Do the companies need to guarantee a certain life span for the project? How are land owners compensated? I live in a wind power area and haven't seen any new turbines on the dock since the subsidies ended.Does wind power need subsidies to even be viable? ~2026-20401-54 (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Materialscientist#Request to lower protection on wind power - hope you will soon be able to edit the article Chidgk1 (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@~2026-20401-54 You can now edit Chidgk1 (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@~2026-20401-54 See Wikipedia:Reliable sources Chidgk1 (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should “Impact on environment and landscape” be an excerpt?

[edit]

I think it should because since I last proposed this Environmental impact of wind power has been improved, and retyping past and future improvements here would be a pain Chidgk1 (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked out exactly what was removed, but generally, I caution that readers will not always investigate more specific articles. Important content should remain here, though that is always a judgment call. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@RCraig09 It is broadly similar to before Chidgk1 (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]