Talk:Renewable energy in Russia

Peat

The parts of the article relating to peat were removed with the claim that it is not renewable [1]. However, [2] clearly states that "The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has changed the classification of peat from a 'fossil fuel' to a 'renewable biomass resource' in recognition that peat can indeed by harvested and cultivated sustainably.". It is also growing much faster than it is being harvested, especially in peat-rich areas like Sweden, Finland, Russia and Canada. I think that this shows that peat can be treated as a renewable resource in this article. --Slon02 (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, the information that peat is a biomass resource is new for me, but the UN link seems covincing. Perhaps the Peat article should contain a link to that UN decision, so that people wouldn't delete peat from other articles on the basis that it is not a traditional biomass. GreyHood ^Talk 22:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

A better reference would be appreciated; From "International Recommendations for Energy Statistics" on UN servers [3] "3.1Peat is not considered a renewable resource as its regeneration period is long." 129.67.86.189 (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the interesting document. However it's only provisional draft from July 2010, and this link holds copyright for 2011. Are you sure that the peat classification wasn't changed by that UN panel in the second half of 2010 or early 2011? GreyHood ^Talk 18:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, as it is written in Peat#Finland peat is recognised as renewable biomass at least in some EU countries. Since Wikipedia should reflect all significant points of view, we certainly should include peat in the article about renewable energy in Russia, but with a note that peat is not universally recognized as renewable source. GreyHood ^Talk 18:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No I am not sure it has not changed; however, a nursery's FAQ is not a reliable source : it is quite literally "hearsay" -- the nursery has not linked the document from where it makes that claim, and we only have it on the authority of the nursery that the document actually was (1) correctly interpreted (2) up-to-date. Without better sources, it would be most prudent to simply omit something where there are concerns, in my opinion. 129.67.86.189 (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree that Glendoick's FAQ is not a reliable source compared to UN documents. But, that FAQ aside, there are other sources claiming peat is renewable, and certain countries recognize this fact. And I think that by leaving peat in the article with a note on non-universal recognition of its renewable status, we achieve a reasonable compromise and better coverage of the topic. Cheers! GreyHood ^Talk 19:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Definition of "underdeveloped"

"Renewable energy in Russia is largely underdeveloped" - but what exactly does "underdeveloped" mean in this context? I know there are sources which say this, but it would be nice to know a more exact definition. Possibly, it's a comparison to some other countries. Then the question is, to which ones? For example, the lead of Renewable energy in China doesn't say the sector is "underdeveloped" - despite the fact that the ratio of renewable sources in China's electricity production is just one percentage point higher than in Russia's (17% vs 16%). Nanobear (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that much depends here on hydroelectricity. Renewable energy excluding hydroelectricity is indeed underdeveloped in Russia, compared to Western nations. Renewable energy including hydroelectricity is pretty good in Russia, due to the large number of hydropower statations with decent technology level. However, if we measure hydroelectricity sector in Russia against very large hydroelectric potential of Siberia and the Far East, than again, we could say that hydroelectricity is underdeveloped in Russia in the sense of much potential still unused. GreyHood ^Talk 14:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Renewable energy in Russia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've skimmed it and it's generally good; some stuff to work on, which I'll list here tomorrow after I read through more carefully. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm passing this, and although I think there is still some potential for expansion, the article covers all the key points, etc. and it's pretty well written. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Prose

• Per Talk:Renewable_energy_in_Russia#Definition_of_.22underdeveloped.22, please clarify "underdeveloped". E.g., what parts are underdeveloped, what sectors are fine.

• I have added a part to the lead section that excludes hydroelectric energy from the sources of renewable energy that are underdeveloped.

• Could you clarify what standards are used to determine developedness? What requirements has Russia not yet met, whose standards are these (some international energy organization?)

• The figures that I added to the lead section should help show the developedness status of Russia's renewable energy. I mainly mean "56th in the world for renewable energy production when hydropower is not taken into account" and "179 TWh of Russia's energy production comes from renewable energy sources, out of a total renewable energy economically feasible potential of 1823 TWh".

• ✓ OK, that works.

• Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Non-breaking_spaces, when dealing with quantities such as "600,000 kWh", use a non-breaking space; the code would be 600,000 kWh, etc.

 Done

• The lede could use another sentence or two, but this is not a big deal.

 Done

• What might be more helpful is expanding the article a bit in general; each section now only has a two or fewer short-ish paragraphs; try to make that two or three paragraphs per section. There are many helpful sources out there: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12].

 Working Sorry for the delay, but I hope to have this done before the weekend.

• I also suggest putting a bit more in on Russia's renewable energy policies and international cooperation (some sources above deal with Russia in the context of Europe, etc.; also see this news article).

 Done

• ✓ No dab links.

References

• Please make sure all the refs have enough information: authors, publishers, dates, works, etc.

• For the information that is missing, it is left out because I couldn't find it in the sources that I used. What should I do in this case? This also applies for the date style.

• Use a consistent date style throughout.

 Done

• Use two columns for the {{reflist}}.

 Done

• "The currently active Kislaya Guba Tidal Power Station is the largest tidal power facility in Russia and has the fourth largest capacity (1.7 MW) among the world's tidal power plants." {{cn}}

 Done

• "mostly in Siberia and the Far East. At the end of 2005, the generating capacity from hydroelectric sources in Russia was 45,700 MW, and an additional 5,648 MW was under construction. Russia has much potential for using its hydro resources, with a theoretical potential of about 2,295 TWh/yr, with 852 TWh being economically feasible." Also {{cn}}

 Done

• ✓ No dead links.
• The last two refs need to be in a consistent format and have additional info (publisher, etc.) added.

 Done

Images

• ✓ Everything is freely licensed.
• Please add alt text, see this tool for a check.

 Done

• The map has no caption. Also, I'm not sure "refer to caption" is OK alt text, but I am not sure on this. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Caption fixed (I accidentally made it not show when I was adding the alt text). Also, I added "refer to caption" based on what I read at Wikipedia:Alt#Captions_and_nearby_text.

• OK, everything here looks good. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Move the wind turbine image to the wind section.Smallman12q (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Renewable energy in Russia/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Is there anyone who would update the article? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Despite appealing to energy and Russia projects and some people who have edited the article in the past no one has yet come forward to update the article.

I think it particularly needs update for wind and solar power. As well it needs sections on politics (e.g. fossil fuel lobby) and geopolitics (e.g. possible EU carbon tariff), and also economics to be added. Possible sources:

https://energymonitor.ai/policy/russian-geopolitics-will-it-ever-fully-engage-with-the-global-clean-energy-transition

https://cms.law/en/int/expert-guides/cms-expert-guide-to-renewable-energy/russia

https://www.climatescorecard.org/2020/04/russia-needs-a-new-strategy-for-its-energy-sector/

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/06/22/russias-coronavirus-recovery-plan-has-no-space-for-renewables-a70658

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/11/15/how-does-a-powerful-russian-lobby-plan-to-halt-climate-change-with-coal-oil-and-gas-a68173

https://www.renews.biz/65693/russia-wind-giant-starts-generating-power/

The pie chart should be replaced by a graph of generation types by year with wind and solar shown specifically. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately no one came forward to update the article so I demoted it. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)