Talk:Renewable energy in the Philippines

Tambayan Philippines High‑importance

High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Energy Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Hello. I have seen that during your major copyedit you practically reverted my edits without notice. Links should be present only at the first occurrence of a word in an article, see

Thanks for your comment. I addressed the problems with which the article had been tagged, especially over inclusion of specialist detail. The paragraphs removed were either unsourced conjecture, out of date or over inclusive. The article also needed some improvement in basic syntax and encyclopaedic tone. I'd suggest having another careful read through the copy edit in light of the above. Good luck to you, Myrtlegroggins (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2022 and 25 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yamcosh (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Tntle.

Here is my edit: User:Yamcosh/Renewable energy in the Philippines Yamcosh (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article currently lists

The problem with both this and the articles on those schemes and also the run-of-the-river article itself is that there are published sources that allow run-of-the-river schemes to have pondage of whatever size. Using and citing these POV sources in a way that keeps Wikipedia both comprehensive and NPOV is not a trivial task. Andrewa (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

Run-of-river means there is no large reservoir, not that there is no dam. A dam (sometimes large) is still necessary in most cases. I'm not sure about the plants you mentioned but just writing to clarify this. --Ita140188 (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

So you regard the two dams I mentioned as each having no large reservoir, is that correct? Andrewa (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: No, I explicitly said "I'm not sure about the plants you mentioned". I just wanted to clarify that having a large dam is not incompatible with a run-of-river plant, as you implied. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Run-of-the-river schemes do in practice use large dams, including those two. It's not a matter of them being not incompatible. It's a matter of the suggestion that run-of-the-river schemes avoid the use of dams is pure greenspeak.

Not sure how to best resolve this. Look for reliable sources that say exactly what run-of-the-river means as a start I guess. Andrewa (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: I'm not following. I was not aware that Run-of-river was used as greenspeak. The meaning is quite clear to me: the dam (even large) does not create a large reservoir (lake), thus the plant does not have much short-term storage capacity and the output depends more on the river flow levels. Indeed, the cited plants do not seem to fit this description at all since they both have large reservoirs. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Those two plants cited by the article as run-of-the-river both have large dams.

And this is typical. Can you find me a large run-of-the-river scheme without a large dam to match?

And that is why it is greenspeak. Hydropower was the original renewable energy source. It still meets the definition, as does whale oil. But that doesn't make it sustainable or environmentally good.

I admit to a personal POV here, which is part of why I discuss here rather than making changes myself. Andrewa (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we are understanding each other. Nobody I am aware of is saying that run-of-river is better than conventional large hydro from the point of view of dams. It has however much less impact than conventional large scale hydro with large reservoirs, since it does not flood large areas of land. Also, of course there are a lot of run-of-river plants with small dams, actually most of very small scale hydro plants are technically run-of-river plants. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]